Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (General Powers) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Chichester Corporation Bill [Lords], Read a Second time, and committed.

Gelligaer Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords], To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Stourbridge Navigation Bill [Lords],

West Riding of Yorkshire Mental Hospitals Board (Superannuation) Bill [Lords], Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CUDDINGTON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Cuddington Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PENSIONS.

Captain CAZALET: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many Indians are to-day in receipt of pensions paid
from Government funds in India; and the total sum involved in any one year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The amount paid in India from Central and Provincial Revenues in respect of Civil and Military Pensions during 1933-34, the last year for which complete accounts are available, was Rs.960 lakhs. I regret that I have no information as to the proportion of this sum representing payments to Indians, or as to the numbers of pensioners.

Captain CAZALET: What proportion of that sum is remitted to this country every year?

Sir S. HOARE: I think I can give that answer, with notice.

DISTURBANCES,JAIPUR.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for India whether an official inquiry is to be held in order to ascertain the origin and extent of the rising of the Jats in Sikar on the 25th April?

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for India the cause of the outbreak among the Jats in Sikar on 25th April, and the number of deaths that have occurred as a result'?

Sir S. HOARE: I understand that the disturbances referred to took place in the north-west part of the State of Jaipur and arose out of agrarian grievances which the authorities of the State have taken steps to redress. Four fatal casualties occurred in the dispersal of a mob. I am not aware whether the State authorities propose to hold a formal inquiry into the incident.

CHAMBER OF PRINCES.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNO: asked the Secretary of State for India when the Chamber of Princes will be next summoned to meet at Delhi?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information on the subject.

Sir A. KNOX: Would it not be an advantage to summon the Chamber as soon as passible so as to enable the Rulers of the native States to come to a decision regarding the Bill?

Sir S. HOARE: It seems to me to be essentially a case for the Princes themselves and for the Viceroy to determine.

ELECTRICITY SCHEME,VIZA GAPATAM

5. Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will ascertain the intentions of the Indian Government on the proposal to instal a large steam electric generating station at Vizagapatam and a transmission system to include Vizianagaram and its neighbourhood; whether this scheme has been started; and when it will be completed?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, I will ask for a report.

RUSSIA (BRITISH EMBASSY PLATE).

8. Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a reply from the Russian Soviet Government to the British Government's claim with regard to the robbery of plate, furniture, and other valuables from the British Embassy in Petrograd in 1918 by officials of the Soviet Government, in respect of which repeated representations have been made by the British Government and, in particular, on 21st October, 1931 and 25th March, 1935; and what is the nature of the Soviet Government's reply and of their proposals for compensating the British Government in respect of the property stolen?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a similar question which he asked on 13th May. No further information has yet been received from His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow; but if a reply from the Soviet Government is not received in the near future, further instructions to press the matter will be sent to His Majesty's representative.

Sir W. DAVISON: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I, in view of the importance of the matter, say that I will raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday in order to get a reply and to raise the claim of property belonging to one of my constituents stolen horn the Embassy at the same time'?

POST OFFICE.

WIRELESS LICENCE FEE.

Captain CAZALET: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider making arrangements whereby telephone subscribers are enabled to have the fee for their wireless licences added to their telephone bill if they desire to do so?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I am making inquiry into this suggestion and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend in due course.

RETIREMENTS, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. CLEARY: asked the Postmaster-General how many employés in the Liverpool Post Office who made application to retire at the age of 55, in accordance with the circular of October, 1934, have had such applications refused, and what were the reasons for such refusal?

Sir E. BENNETT: Nine employés in the Liverpool Post Office applied under the terms of the circular and seven of the applications were granted. Two have been refused because retirement could not be justified on financial grounds.

SAVINGS BANK (MARRIED WOMEN. EMPLOYES).

28. Mr. McENTEE: asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the Post Office Savings Bank is now re-employing married women by taking them back after compulsory retirement on marriage, he will state the amount of the pay; and whether this action indicates that there are no people in the lower grades who are available for promotion for this work?

Sir E. BENNETT: Eleven ex-women clerks who left the Savings Bank Department on marriage have recently been engaged to meet a need in that Department caused by temporary difficulties of recruitment. They are being paid on the standard scales of pay for temporary women clerks, beginning at 45s. ld. or 43s. ld. a week according to the importance of the work. Arrangements are in hand with a view to the promotion of a number of writing assistants to fill vacancies on the clerical grade as soon as may be practicable.

EDMONTON GREEN OFFICE.

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his decision to close the post office on Edmonton Green, there are any complaints concerning the way in which that office has been conducted by the present sub-postmaster?

Sir E. BENNETT: No, Sir.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is my hon. Friend aware that this post office has been in charge of the same family for over 100 years; and does he not think it is a little hard upon them that it should be taken away from them now?

Sir E. BENNETT: I am aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member, but the new post office was asked for by the urban district council and the site was approved by them.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: asked the Postmaster-General the average monthly turnover over six months to the last convenient date in postage business and pensions business, respectively, at Edmonton Green Post Office; what were the comparable figures in 1927; and whether the returns at this office show a profit?

Sir E. BENNETT: The figures of business done at the Edmonton Green Post Office are not available in the form requested and their preparation would involve considerable work which I fear could not be justified. It is not practicable to isolate the working of a particular post office from postal business generally for the purpose of determining whether it yields a profit.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Can my hon. Friend say whether the figures are considerable and whether they have increased durinthelastfew years?

Sir E. BENNETT: No, I am afraid I have no information on that point.

UNEMPLOYMENT (YORKSHIRE).

32. Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as wholly unemployed at the latest date available at Pontefract, Castleford, Normanton, Barnsley, Wakefield, and Goole, respectively, and the comparative figures for 1934 and 1930?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Numbers of Wholly Unemployed persons on the Registers of the undermentioned Employment Exchanges.

EmploymentExchange.
20th May, 1935.
14th May, 1934.
26th May, 1930.


Pontefract
…
1,864
1,757
1,180


Casileford
…
3,784
4,000
2,034


Normanton
…
852
876
392


Barnsley
…
7,842
6,624
4,523


Wakefield
…
3,659
3,635
2,589


Goole
…
1,390
1,316
739

COAL INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons killed and seriously injured, as the result of accidents caused by shot-firing, during each of the last three years?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): During the year 1932, 41 persons were killed and 161 injured by accidents due to the use of explosives and to explosions of firedamp attributed to shot-firing. The corresponding figures for 1933 were 19 and 142, and for 1934, 23 and 213. All such accidents causing any personal injury whatever are reportable to His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and the figures of injuries are given on that basis.

LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE SALES SCHEME.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is proposed under the provisions of the Lancashire and Cheshire District (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order (No. 2) to provide for increased prices of coal to specified classes of consumers; and whether he can give an assurance that before any proposal to this effect is put into operation there shall be a consultation with representatives of the classes of consumers likely to be adversely affected?

Mr. E. BROWN: Under the provisions of this Order, the Lancashire and Cheshire Executive Board will be empowered to sell coal on behalf of all coal-owners in that district. The Board will sell in the ordinary way of business, and there will no doubt be the usual consultations as between buyer and seller. One of the objects of the scheme is to ensure an economic return to the coal industry in the district, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the consumer will not only have the protection afforded by the competition of other fuels and coal produced in other districts, but he will have the right of complaint to the District Committee of Investigation with regard to any action of the Executive Board. If my hon. Friend desires, I shall be happy to discuss the details of the scheme with him.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I take it that there is no intention to discriminate against any particular class of customer?

Mr. BROWN: The point is that they will be able to take action themselves.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is it not the intention of the scheme to get a better pithead price?

Mr. BROWN: Since 1931 the price of Lancashire pithead coal has gone down by over a shilling, and that has been to the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. DI CKIE: Is it not a fact that there is a, wide field in which the pithead price could be raised to the consumer without doing the slightest harm to anybody, thereby allowing a decent wage to be paid to the miners?

Mr. BROWN: We will see how this pioneer scheme works out.

PUBLIC HEALTH (INFANT MORTALITY, KENSINGTON).

35. Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the high infant mortality rate last year in Kensington, 93 per 1,000 births as compared with 59 per 1,000 for England and Wales as a whole; and whether he is satisfied that the Kensington Borough Council is taking all possible steps to reduce it?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend understands that the borough council have recently decided to add two whole-time medical officers to their staff, with a view to the further development of the valuable work of the infant welfare centres.

Mr. DUNCAN: Is there any evidence to show that the deaths of these young children have been due to any particular cause, or that they belong to any particular class, such as the unemployed?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No. None at all.

Mr. WEST: Is the hon. Member aware that the death-rate in the northern part of the division is 102 per thousand, the highest in London, and that it was recently stated that the chief factors in this terrible mortality are overcrowding, underground rooms, vermin and high rents. Has not that something to do with the borough council?

Mr. DUNCAN: Is it not a fact that the highest death-rate is in a ward of South Kensington, and not in North Kensington?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Minister aware that many of the infants who are returned to swell this abnormally high death-rate were not born in Kensington and did not die in Kensington, but that it is only because of the method of registration by the Registrar-General that they are attributed to Kensington?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is not for me to settle the dispute between the Kensington Members, but the plain facts are that housing conditions in Kensington are bad and that there is a particularly active council in all matters of housing.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (DISTURBANCES).

37. Mr. J. DUNCAN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the recent riots in the copper belt in Northern Rhodesia; and whether order has now been restored?

38. Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information regarding the disturbances which have arisen out of a strike of miners in Northern Rhodesia, in the course of which a number of miners have been killed; whether any efforts are being made to settle the dispute; whether any inquiry will be held into the cause of the disturbances; and what is the present situation 7

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I apologise for the length of the answer, but I think hon. Members will like to have all the information I have about these disturbances.
On the 22nd of May the natives employed at the Mufulira Mine in the Central Province of Northern Rhodesia went on strike, returning to work on the following day. On the 25th of May notices were posted at Nkana and Mufulira Mines calling upon the natives to strike on the 27th May. On the following day there was a small disturbance at the Nkana Mine when three police were injured. On the 27th May many native labourers at Nkana refused to work and attempted unsuccessfully to prevent those who were willing to work. On the 28th May the Governor reported that nearly all natives had returned to work at Nkana and all at Mufulira. On the 29th May, however, a serious disturbance broke out at Luanshya, when large numbers of natives attacked the offices of the Roan Antelope Mine and the Power Station. The police were compelled to fire in order to ward off this attack, and five natives were killed and six wounded. Troops of the Northern Rhodesia Regiment were at once dispatched to the disturbed area, and as a precautionary measure certain European and native police have been sent from Southern Rhodesia. I am happy to say that the Governor reported yesterday that conditions at Mufulira and Nkana remain normal and that 90 per cent. of the natives have returned to work at Roan Antelope, where the situation is well in hand.
With regard to the second part of the question, there is no actual dispute to settle. Conditions in the mines are admirable and reflect great credit on the mining companies. The opportunity of recent changes in the method of taxation
has, however, been used in some quarters to claim an increase in wages. The Government has recently introduced a change in the incidence of native poll tax. The object of this was to graduate the tax, decreasing it in areas where the natives were poor and had little or no opportunity of employment, and increasing it where regular employment and more prosperous conditions prevail. The local officers report that the information at their disposal points to the conclusion that the strikes were instigated by the ring-leaders of a native secret society, who used the change in the rate of taxation as a means to create a disturbance.
The Governor proposes to appoint a Commission of Inquiry which will sit as soon as conditions in the mining area have reverted to normal. The members of the Commission will be the Chief Secretary, the Provincial Commissioner of the Northern Province, who has had more than 20 years' experience of native administration in various parts of the territory; and Mr. Goodhart, who was for a long period the senior unofficial elected member of the Legislative Council. The terms of reference of the Commission will be to inquire into the circumstances attending the recent disturbances at Luanshya, Nkana and Mufulira, and the causes which gave rise to such disturbances.

Mr. LUNN: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if workmen in Northern Rhodesia go on strike, like other workmen in the British Empire, for an advance of wages, owing largely to reductions in other directions, that that is a justification for calling out the police, shooting down men and electrifying barbed wires? Is that a justifiable position to take up?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I profoundly regret that the hon. Member should think it desirable to put a supplementary question of that kind, on what must be an entirely imperfect knowledge of the circumstances. I have told the House, fully and frankly, all the information that is at my disposal, and I am quite satisfied on that information, as he will be when he reads it, that it was the obvious duty of the Government to preserve law and order, and that they have acted as any Government would be bound to act.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman supplement his answer a little? How were these men killed Were they shot down, and why were they shot down?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not follow my answer—

Mr. LUNN: I did.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Then I repeat that I stated with particularity what the casualties were and the circumstances in which action was absolutely necessary; that it was in order to prevent further loss of life that the action was taken.

Mr. DUNCAN: Is there any evidence to show that this secret society is inspired purely from native sources or from some foreign source?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did say that the experienced officers on the spot were satisfied that there was a large amount of evidence to show that this dispute was organised by one of these secret societies. I thought it fair to say that the Governor, a very experienced man, has given that as the considered opinion of a number of experienced officers, and I thought it fair to give all the facts in my possession. I would suggest that the reasonable thing to do now is to await the full report of the committee of inquiry, which I will communicate to the House as soon as I have the information, and that it is premature to arrive at a conclusion on the matter or even to discuss it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is there any trade union in existence in this particular territory or any organised body capable of negotiating wages and terms of conditions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that there is any trade union, but the hon. Member knows the conditions obtaining in Northern Rhodesian copper mines and will agree that they are a model which might well be followed in many places.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is it not necessary that some body should be set up to regulate wages, hours and conditions of labour?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that this strike was not against wages but against taxation, and is it not about time that we had a strike in this country against taxation?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

41. Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that the Netherlands conform to his request that they should make a reduction in their imports of eggs to this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The attention of the Netherlands Government is again being called to the position.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not the case that the import of eggs from the Netherlands have gone up by 300 per cent., and cannot some more drastic action be taken?

Dr. BURGIN: There has been an over-shipment and the attention of the Netherlands Government has been drawn to the fact. This should be sufficient in the circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Can we take it that these increased shipments will stop?

9. Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information that the large imports of eggs from the Netherlands during the first four months of this year were used as fresh eggs or cold stored; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent these eggs, and other foreign eggs, being sold as imported new-laid after being stored for a considerable time?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): As regards the first part of the question, I have no information as to what proportion of the Dutch eggs imported during recent months has been retailed as fresh eggs and what proportion has been put into cold store. As regards the concluding paragraph of the question, a recommendation by the Egg and Poultry Commission on the subject of marking cold stored imported eggs with the word "Stored," in addition to the indication of origin at present required, is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not unfair that it should be permissible to sell foreign cold-stored eggs as new laid, while the English egg has to be marked?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: How many inspectors will be required to make sure that these eggs are sold with the designation required?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think that such a regulation could be enforced if it were statutory. There is no statutory power to make such a regulation at present.

PRODUCTION (STATISTICS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the estimated value of all agricultural production in Great Britain for the year 1934, or the latest year for which figures are available; and the total value of imported foods, excluding tobacco and drink, for the same year

Mr. ELLIOT: It has been estimated that the gross value of the agricultural output in Great Britain in 1932-33, the latest year for which figures are available, was 219,000,000. The average total declared value of imported foodstuffs, excluding drink, tobacco and fish, for the years 1932 and 1933, was £297,000,000.

MILK.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the total output of milk in Great Britain for the years 1931 to 1934 and for the first four months of this year?

Mr. ELLIOT: As regards the output of milk in years prior to 1934, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 10th May. According to statistics published by the Milk Marketing Boards, the quantity of milk recorded as having been sold in 1934 under the English and Scottish schemes, but excluding the Aberdeen and North of Scotland schemes, which were in operation for part of the year only, was approximately 986 million gallons. The corresponding figures for January-March, 1935, again excluding the Aberdeen and North of Scotland schemes, is 250 million gallons. I regret that figures for April are not yet available.

Mr..WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman tried to estimate the percentage increase in the production of liquid milk since the provision of the subsidy for manufactured milk in 1934?

Mr. ELLIOT: I require notice of that question

13. Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the recent
advertising contract of the Milk Marketing Board was put out to tender; and, if not, by what means it was allocated; what is the figure of the contract; and whether he is satisfied that proper steps were taken by the board to obtain the most advantageous and efficient service?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Milk Board have, I understand, appointed agents for the Press and poster work in connection with this campaign, but I am not aware that they have issued any advertising contract. I hope to lay before the House within the next few days particulars of arrangements for a milk publicity campaign which has been initiated by the Milk Marketing Board and which has been submitted to me for approval.

14. Mr. LINDSAY: asked the Minister of Agriculture in how many districts the Milk Marketing Board has tested the elasticity of demand by varying the selling price of milk; and what is the result of these experiments?

Mr. ELLIOT: Milk is sold by wholesale on contracts covering the period October, 1934, to September, 1935, inclusive. The contracts do not provide for variation of the retail price of liquid milk, except that on the application of a majority of the retailers in any area the Milk Marketing Board may reduce the minimum appropriate retail price for that area. Reductions have been approved by the Board in about 280 areas, but I have no information so far as to what has been the effect on the demand. The arrangements now in force regarding the supply of milk at special rates to school children have, I understand, resulted in a very considerable increase in the quantity of milk drunk in schools.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Milk Marketing Board has considered the possibility of arranging for the supply of cheap liquid milk to the hospitals by means of a scheme whereby all hospitals within a given area undertake to combine to purchase a regular large daily quantity of such liquid milk; and whether he will urge the Board to deal with this matter as one of urgency?

Mr. ELLIOT: The position with regard to the price of milk supplied to hospitals was explained in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Hallam) and the hon.
Member for the St. Rollox division (Mr. Leonard) on 2nd May. I am sure that the Milk Marketing Board would at all times be willing to consider any scheme for the bulk purchase of milk which would be to the mutual advantage of producers and purchasers. Any proposals, such as those which my hon. Friend indicates, which the hospitals may wish to suggest should therefore be made direct.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the Milk Marketing Board power under the existing scheme to sell directly to institutions such as hospitals, on the basis of any figures upon which they may agree?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that in some cases hospitals have already combined in order to purchase bulk supplies at the lower rates applicable to milk supplied wholesale or in large quantities.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But can the Milk Marketing Board sell directly to these institutions without retailers taking any part of the ultimate price?

Mr. ELLIOT: Obviously, that does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

BEEF PRICES.

12. Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the average wholesale price of British and Scotch beef, separately, during the months of May, 1934, and May, 1935, taking the same quality in each case'?

Mr. ELLIOT: The average wholesale prices of English and Scotch beef during May, 1935, in London were about id. per lb. less than in the corresponding month of last year. I am circulating details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the price to the consumer has decreased similarly during the scheduled period?

Mr. ELLIOT: There has certainly been a decrease, but, if the hon. Member desires any further information he should put a question on the Paper, and I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there.is general feeling throughout the country that the retail price has not decreased, and that the subsidy provided by the Government is finding its way into
pockets other than those for which it was intended?

Mr. ELLIOT: None of this arises out of the question, but, if my hon. Friend desires a debate with me upon the subsidy, no doubt there will be other opportunities.

Following are the details:

Average Monthly * Prices (per lb.) of English and Scotch Longsides of Beef at London (Smithfield) in the Months of May, 1935,

Description.
Quality or Grade.
May, 1934.
May, 1935.


National Mark:


d.
d.


English
…
Select
…
7
6¾


English
…
Prime
…
6⅝
6⅜


Scotch
…
Select
…
7¾
7½


Scotch
…
Prime
…
7⅜
7⅛

*The prices represent transactions between wholesalers and retailers.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (RENTS).

15. Mr. LEONARD: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the possibility of increased rents being demanded for agricultural land, he is prepared to recommend the Government to set up machinery for the settlement of disputes that may so arise?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, already provides machinery for dealing with disputes as to the. rent of agricultural land, and I do not contemplate the introduction of further legislation on the subject?

TOMATO INDUSTRY.

19. Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that English tomato growers are receiving at the present time a smaller net return for their total crop than before the imposition of the import duties on foreign tomatoes in 1932; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the near future to give further assistance to the homegrown tomato industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that the average prices realised for English tomatoes in May, 1935, were lower than in the same month of 1931. As regards the second part of the question it is open to the tomato industry to submit a fresh application to the Import Duties Advisory
Committee if they consider that further assistance is required.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the big jump which took place in the price of tomatoes during May?

Mr. ELLIOT: I was asked about the average price throughout the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

COLOURED SEAMEN.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state his Department's decision regarding the case of the 12 coloured seamen residing in Cardiff who claim British national status and whose documents were withdrawn and alien registration cards substituted, to which his attention has been drawn?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Investigations are being made with regard to the national status of these men. This will probably involve reference to the Governments of the Colonies to which the men are stated to belong, and I am afraid that some little time must necessarily elapse before a decision can be reached.

Captain EVANS: asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to receive, in company with the President of the Board of Trade, a deputation of interested parties in regard to the coloured seamen problem?

Dr. BURGIN: I have been asked to reply. My hon. and gallant Friend wrote to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and to my right hon. Friend a short time ago asking them to receive a deputation on the subject mentioned in his question. My right hon. Friend has suggested to him that in view of the discussions which are now proceeding between the interests concerned, the question of the proposed deputation should be postponed.

Captain EVANS: In view of the grave and depressed condition prevailing among coloured seamen in Cardiff, will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the National Maritime Board and the Seaman's Union that a responsible representative of the
coloured seamen should be allowed to attend these discussions; and will he intimate when they will take place?

Dr. BURGIN: I cannot intimate offhand when the discussions will take place, but the importance of the matter is realised by all parties concerned, and I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member need have any difficulty in imagining that a rapid investigation will be pursued.

SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT FACILITIES).

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 39 and 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the system of joint-employment facilities for seamen, set up voluntarily in 1918 under the auspices of the National Maritime Board, has yet been sufficiently developed to allow of the Genoa Convention being ratified by this country;
(2) whether and, if so, in what respect the existing system of providing employment facilities for seamen is in conflict with the provisions of the international convention adopted at Geneva in 1920?

Dr. BURGIN: The system set up voluntarily in 1918 is working well, but it is doubtful whether it accords in detail with the requirements of the Convention. In these circumstances, it is not proposed at present to ratify the Convention.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. REMER: 45.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the 30-miles-per-hour restricted area on the main road between London and Manchester and Liverpool passing through Newcastle-under-Lyme; whether he is aware that the length restricted exceeds nine miles and that long stretches have no street lamps, no houses, and consist of wide arterial roads; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with restrictions which have been unreasonably placed in this and other places?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the application of the 30 miles per hour speed limit to certain sections of the road which runs from Strongford Bridge to the road leading from Talke which I think is the
road which my hon. Friend has in mind. He is informed that of this stretch of approximately 10 miles, only about one mile of unlighted road is restricted. His officers are in communication with the local authorities concerned with a view to derestricting any sections where the speed limit appears to have been unnecessarily imposed. He is taking the same action with regard to similar roads in other areas.

Mr. REMER: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this question was put down last Monday and that I was travelling over the road last Wednesday, and part of it was being de-restricted then? Is it really necessary that Members of Parliament should have to put questions about every part of the country before roads can be de-restricted?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: In view of the statement that these roads are unnecessarily restricted, can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the Minister agrees to these restrictions by the local authorities?

Captain HUDSON: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that these roads are restricted by the local authority under an Act of Parliament. We are asking the highway authority to act as quickly as possible. I think hon. Members will have noticed all over the country that the situation is being rapidly put right.

Sir W. BRASS: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is aware that this cannot take place without the consent of his right hon. Friend?

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. ALAN TODD: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the number of street accidents which have taken place at pedestirian crossing-places in London; and what percentage those accidents represent of the total number of street accidents in London since October, 1934?

Captain A. HUDSON: During the six months beginning on the 1st November, 1934, there were 1,045 accidents (of which 20 were fatal) involving personal injury at pedestrian crossing-places within the City of London and Metropolitan Police District. This figure, which includes persons other than pedestrians, represents
4½ per cent. of all road accidents in the area during the same period.

Sir W. BRASS: Would my hon. and gallant Friend suggest to the Home Secretary that special precautions be taken at pedestrian crossings by the police?

Captain HUDSON: I will make that suggestion.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to have someone stationed at the other side of the road when people drive over the crossings without the slightest notice?

TRANSPORT AND OMNIBUS STOPPING PLACES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the traffic congestion caused owing to the fact that many tramcar and omnibus stops are placed on the near instead of on the remote side of traffic lights; and whether he will consider drawing the attention of local authorities to this cause of traffic congestion?

Captain A. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the question of the siting of tramcar and omnibus stopping places in the vicinity of signal controlled junctions, and after careful consideration he has come to the conclusion that, in the interests of the safety and convenience of the travelling public, it is generally desirable that the vehicles in question should stop before crossing the junctions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would the Minister be willing to consider making the change experimentally at a few points in order to examine whether the change is likely to be successful?

Captain HUDSON: There is a body called the Stopping-Places Advisory Committee, a sub-committee of the Traffic Advisory Committee, which goes round with representatives of the local authorities, and in each case tries to choose the right place.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister allow one of the members of that committee to go round with me?

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.

Captain CAZALET: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport how many companies, private and municipal, are distributing electricity in connection with the Central Board of Electricity Commissioners?

Captain A. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is informed that at the present time the Central Electricity Board are giving direct supplies from the Grid system to 190 authorised undertakers of which 131 are public authorities and 59 are companies. Many of these undertakers give bulk supplies to other undertakers, who thus receive supplies indirectly from the Grid.

Captain CAZALET: Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which these companies are doing their work, in view of the fact that 10 years ago we were promised light in the home and power on the farm, and to-day there are still 6,000,000 homes without any electricity?

Captain HUDSON: That does not arise from the question, which asked for certain figures. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put his question on the Paper I may be able to give him some further information.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Mr. McENTEE: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that those employés of the London Transport Board who were absent from work through illness, and those who were in receipt of compensation allowance for accident, have not received payment for Jubilee day; and whether he will represent to the board that they should treat these employés in the same way as employés whose health enabled them to be on duty at that time?

Captain A. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend will bring the hon. Member's representation to the notice of the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, in distributing the tickets for the Naval Review at Spithead, he will allot one to each hon. Member who applies, distributing the remainder, if any, by ballot among the hon. Members who apply for more than one?

Mr. GLOSSOP: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether hon. Members who apply for single tickets for themselves for the Naval Review at Spithead will be given a preference in the allocation of tickets over those Members who, being married, are allowed to apply for two tickets?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY(Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I think that, as the majority of Members are married, they would prefer having two tickets or none, in order to avoid any matrimonial reproaches, but I hope, in view of the number of names so far put down, that all Members desiring to see the Review will be able to do so. The bachelors to whom my hon. Friend, the Member for Penistone (Mr. Glossop) refers will, therefore, be able to have what they think is the best of both worlds.

QUETTA EARTHQUAKE DISASTER.

Mr. ATTLEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House the latest information regarding the situation in Quetta, following upon the earthquake disaster?

Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps the House will allow me, in the first place, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman.
I deeply regret to say that the reports I have received of this appalling disaster unfortunately fully bear out what has appeared in the public Press. I am grieved to state that the whole city of Quetta has been destroyed. All houses in the civil area have been razed to the ground except Government House which is partially standing in ruins. One quarter of the cantonment area is destroyed, the remaining three-quarters are slightly damaged, but inhabitable. Most damage has occurred in the Royal Air Force area where the barracks have been destroyed and only six out of 27 machines remain serviceable. The railway area has been destroyed but the Staff College area is undamaged.
The bodies of about 4,500 members of the Indian civil population have been recovered. It is feared that about 20,000 still remain buried in the debris. Kalat and Mastung and all the villages between Quetta and Kalat are reported to have
been destroyed, but Loralai and Chaman and apparently Fort Sandeman escaped.
The total of Indian casualties outside the city of Quetta is at present unknown. The total of British deaths is about 200. The situation is well in hand but as nearly all the subordinate police officers have been killed it has been necessary to ask for military assistance. The Western Command have assumed control of the situation and are rationing the population. Arrangements are being made to send food and collect casualties in. the neighbouring villages. Special police are being sent by the Government of the Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province. Evacuation is proceeding and will continue so long as there is no outbreak of epidemic against which all possible precautions are being taken by the medical authorities. Patients are being treated in the Indian Military and Cantonment Hospital where between four and five thousand had been received up to Sunday evening. Refugee camps have been established on the racecourse. Supplies and personnel are being despatched by train and airplane from Karachi and Lahore and the Viceroy has lent his airplane for this purpose.
Communications by rail and road are reported to be intact. The civil land telegraphic line has been restored and an accumulation of private telegrams from Quetta is being dealt with as rapidly as circumstances allow. In order to deal effectively with the situation, the General Officer Commanding has been authorised to declare martial law in the city and cantonment at his discretion.
His Excellency the Viceroy has inaugurated a Quetta Earthquake Relief Fund, and has issued an appeal in India to which I am sure there will be a prompt and sympathetic response.
I have no doubt that I am speaking for all sections of this House, and for the country as a whole, when I say that our deep sympathy goes out to all those who have suffered in this terrible calamity, the news of which has so profoundly shocked us all.

Mr. ATTLEE: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kindly reference to myself. May I ask him,, in reference to this disaster which we all deplore so much, whether he will make it plain, as reports to the contrary have been cir
culated, that there is no intention of abandoning the search for living persons in the ruins of Quetta.

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and with the indulgence of the House, may I offer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) an apology for a misstatement which I made on Thursday last. A drafting Amendment was before the House, and my hon. Friend based a criticism or suggestion upon a Clause which I informed him had been struck out of the Bill two or three days earlier. I was wrong. When I found on Saturday that the Clause was in the Bill, I informed my hon. Friend of my mistake, and I now offer him an apology which I hope he will accept.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his characteristic courtesy, if I may so describe it. He himself it was who found out that there was a mistake, and he offered of his own initiative to express regret. I am exceedingly grateful to him.

ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).

Estimate presented,—of Charge for Army Ordnance Factories for 1935 thy Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[SEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DKNNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1935.

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £39,098, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919; Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921; Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, and the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896; Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, the Caledonian Canal, Crinan Canal, and Menai Bridge."— [NoTE: £70,000 has been voted on account.]

3.31 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): During the 15 years since its creation the Ministry of Transport has been responsible for no fewer than 12 important Acts dealing with electricity supply, railways, highways and bridges, the regulation of road vehicles and road traffic and the co-ordination of traffic. Its activities touch the lives and habits of the citizen at so many points that it may with truth be said that from the moment he emerges from his house in the morning, whether as a pedestrian, cyclist., or motorist, to the moment when, as a consumer of electricity, he switches off the light before going to bed, he rarely ceases to come within the sphere of influence of my Department. May it not even be added that the Department has now assisted him to sleep peacefully at night? It is perhaps not inappropriate to this trend of reflection to notice that all these great services, the conditions of whose growth and development have been adjusted under the aegis of the Ministry to meet the requirements of a modern State, have advanced in convenience and efficiency. Recognition is due to the foresight of my predecessors and to those who carry on its day-to-day work.
That intricate network of high transmission lines known as the Grid, for which the Act of 1926 provided, now covers the whole country and is in full operation in seven out of nine areas, with the result that the generation of electricity, previously in the hands of 600 independent undertakers, has in Great Britain become a national system, correlated under a central control. The enterprise has made widespread demands on the resources and ingenuity of British manufacture. Since 1929 the public supply of electricity has expanded by about 50 per cent., whereas the similar expansion for The world at large has been only about 10 per cent. At Bournemouth this week there is to take place the first National Convention of all branches of the industry, and I have no doubt that attention will be turned towards means of improving distribution and unifying the basis of charges. In the meantime we must recognise the progress which has been made in distribution. The additional number of consumers is increasing at the rate of 600,000 a year.
An earlier reform which took place under the aegis of my Department was the co-ordination in four groups of the 120 separate railway companies, and the Minister was given power to require or authorise measures to effect the standardisation of ways, plant, and equipment. While much has been recently done to regularise the carriage of goods and passengers by road, these services are still free from certain obligations under which the railway companies labour, such as having to carry all passengers and virtually all goods offered to them at published rates. At a time when road transport is coming under supervision, it is opportune to bear in mind that the railways, as common carriers, have for a century been subjected to statutory duties, comprehensively providing for the safety and convenience of their employés and the public.
Despite, or perhaps encouraged by, reduced charges the receipts from passenger train traffic increased during 1934 by over £1,200,000 and 64,000,000 more passengers were carried by the railways in 1934 than in 1933. This recoupment was not merely at the expense of road transport, for about 150.000,000 more passengers were carried
by omnibuses, coaches, tramcars and trolley vehicles during the year 1933-34 than in the previous 12 months. On the goods side the improvement in trade and industry was reflected in an increased tonnage, particularly of iron and steel carried by rail, of 19,000,000 tons, or 72 per cent., and increased receipts of approximately £4,550,000. It is particularly gratifying to notice that there was an increase of 8,750 in the staff employed by the railway companies, the railway clearing house, and the London Passenger Transport Board
.
The canals too had their best year since the financial crisis in 1931, and conveyed 480,000 tons more traffic than in 7933. It should not be forgotten that about 12,000,000 tons of traffic passes annually by canal, nearly half being coal. The revival of interest in inland water borne traffic is exemplified by the important improvements on the Grand Union Canal, which were opened by His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent last summer.
Another group of enactments is concerned with the regulation of motor transport. Both on the passenger and the goods sides it has been sought to secure the orderly provision of services in good conditions. Two of the chief abuses which it was desired to abate were the overworking of drivers and the overloading of vehicles, and conditions aimed at the prevention of these abuses are now attached to every licence. I might mention here that while I have, on the application of the employers and the employed, granted a variation of the permitted hours of driving in the case of vehicles authorised to carry goods for hire or reward, I have not seen my way to grant an application to extend these increased hours to all the 400,000 goods vehicles on the road. To do so at this stage would seem to me to be thwarting the humane intention of Parliament, which was to preserve the public safety.
Drivers of ordinary motor cars, like drivers of public service vehicles, are in future to be subjected to a driving test, which became compulsory as from the 1st June in the case of all applicants for licences on and after that date who bad not held a licence before the 1st April, 1934. During the last three months a voluntary system has been in operation, during which 35,000 persons have taken the test and nearly one in every
10 has failed—an illustration of the needless risks which were taken previously in permitting any one to take a powerful machine on to the road on the simple payment of 5s. An organisation of examiners supported out of fees, has been established by the Ministry throughout the country. While we are taking steps to ensure a reasonable efficiency in driving, means have not yet been found of subjecting private vehicles to a test for brake and tyre defects. That is for the future.
In addition to securing a proper standard of driving it is necessary to provide for a more orderly and methodical use of the roads. The new Highway Code, which Parliament has just approved, will, if studied and observed, create a. sound road practice. Every means will be taken to make the public acquainted with its contents, and, as the House knows, every householder in the country will receive a free copy and 15,000,000 copies are to be distributed. This will be the biggest issue of a publication ever made by a Government Department.
As regards particular measures undoubtedly the pedestrian crossings have been responsible for the saving of life and limb. We managed to get about 10,000 of these put down in London within a period of three months, owing to an offer, with a fixed time limit, which I made to the London Boroughs. I am now making a similar offer to the Provinces, calling their attention to the success of the London experiment. It is noteworthy that in London, where the safety measures have been chiefly concentrated, there has been a far greater percentage reduction in accidents than in the country as a whole. There has been a reduction in London in the number of killed of 31 per cent., and of injured 16 per cent, in the last eleven weeks of this year, as compared with the same period last year. The reductions for the country as a whole in the last eleven weeks has been 16 per cent. in killed and 114 per cent. in injured, as compared with the same period last year.
The speed limit, which came into operation on the 18th March, has made for the safer and more agreeable flow of traffic. The number of casualties which have occurred in City, Metropolitan and Borough Police areas has fallen by 14½
per cent. as compared with 8 per cent. in the County Police areas. That is a rough indication—of course, there are other factors involved—of the success of the speed limit. In the light of experience I am hoping to de-restrict further numbers of roads where the limit has been unnecessarily applied.
The most distressing feature of the accident returns is the number of children involved. Out of 3,517 pedestrians killed on our roads in 1933, no fewer than 1,171, or one-third, were under the age of 15. In conjunction with the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have appointed two Departmental Committees to draw up a curriculum for teaching road safety in schools. This will reinforce the efforts made in many individual schools. Undoubtedly, many accidents occur owing to the lack of playing grounds for children. They have nowhere to play except in the public carriage way. While I am most anxious not to take any steps which will delay their extended provision, I feel I must meanwhile take the step of closing certain streets in London to motor traffic, except when it is proceeding to premises in those streets. Notice of a regulation will, therefore, be given this week converting, as an experiment, certain streets in Southwark and Paddington into children's play streets. It is intended to erect notices at the ends of the streets and to paint the kerbs with green paint. While I do not anticipate any objections from residents I shall, of course, take into careful account any that I may receive observing that the system has already been tried in Salford and Manchester with success.
The campaign for road safety is the most human part of my task, and I am grateful to acknowledge the widespread sympathy with and understanding of its purpose. The intensity of the campaign has coincided with, and not in any way checked, the rapid extension of the use of the roads by mechanical transport. At the end of February there were 224,000 more vehicles licensed than at the corresponding date in 1934; and 441,000 more than at the same period in 1931. The rate at which new vehicles are coming upon the roads exceeds all previous records, and already during the first four
months of this year 151,268 new vehicles have been registered. There is every indication that this Jubilee Year will prove to be a year of unexampled expansion in motoring.
We must do everything we can to provide for this great expansion and see to it that the motor vehicle, like every other road using interest, has all the facilities it can reasonably require from the points of view of both convenience and safety. With this intention in mind, the Government decided on their five-year plan for the roads. Highway authorities have been invited to send in their proposals on this basis, and up to the present we have received programmes from about half of them. Further programmes are being received almost daily, and there is every indication that the scope of the plan will be in excess of anything we have yet achieved in a similar period of time. None of the work on current applications is being delayed, and we have approved, since the beginning of the financial year, grants amounting in all to £2,500,000 for major improvements, as compared with £600,000 during the same period last year—four times as much. The standards laid down are, wherever the traffic conditions require, dual carriageways, footpaths, cycling tracks, removal of blind corners, circumventing the dangers of cross roads, reducing camber and effecting super-elevation, together other improvements. Considerable progress has been made in the provision of non-skid surfaces, and which experimental work has been done in various parts of the country, and this is being conducted by the Ministry's experimental committee in conjunction with the Road Research Board. The object aimed at is the production of a surfacing material which will remain non-skid for a period of at least five years.
I have also appointed a departmental committee with the following terms of reference:
To examine and report what steps can be taken for securing more efficient and uniform street lighting, with particular reference to the convenience and safety of traffic and with due regard to the requirements of residential and shopping areas and to make recommendations.
The Committee, I understand, are about to consider their interim report.
We hope within the five years to eliminate all those weak bridges in the possession of railway and other statutory
owners which most seriously affect the flow of traffic. Priority lists have been prepared by 61 counties out of 93, for the reconstruction of 1,068 bridges. Up to the present we have been told that the reconstruction of 226, or 20 per cent. of the whole number, will be put in hand during the current financial year. There are 1,385 level crossings on classified roads. I hope that the 75 per cent. grants which are available for work of this nature will induce highway authorities to accelerate progress towards their elimination.
London experience indicates that the tramcar, taken in conjunction with its track, has a higher accident ratio than the trolley vehicle, and is a greater hindrance to the free flow of traffic. The number of accidents involving personal injury per 100,000 car miles run is slightly over 6 per cent, in the case of trolley vehicles, and over 9 per cent, in the case of tramcars. Although the London Passenger Transport Board only assumed its responsibilities two years ago it has already formulated plans for the substitution of over 40 per cent, of its tramways by trolley vehicles. I am pleased to say that between 1929 and 1934 the mileage of routes operated by trolley vehicles throughout the country doubled, and there are now over 350 miles of trolley routes. Where the routes are suitable for its operation this type of vehicle helps home industries and particularly the coal trade, in that electricity is still used as the motive power and the load is thus retained. It has the additional advantages of silence, quickness of acceleration and freedom from fumes. A comprehensive and systematic survey of the highway developments required in the London traffic area in order to keep pace with the expansion of traffic is now being undertaken by Sir Charles Bressey, in conjunction with Sir Edwin Lutyens and is an attempt to avoid for the future the neglects of the past. I hope that their report will be both imaginative and practical. It is fortunate that the determination to replan our highways coincides with the introduction of the Ribbon Development Bill, which will lay down the standard widths to be preserved for the future widening of roads, and, if its provisions are used to good advantage by the highway authorities, will preserve the amenities of the countryside.
The whole of the work of the Ministry of Transport is conducted by a staff of about 2,100 persons, both inside and outside, and including the staff engaged to test drivers and the staffs of the Traffic Commissioners, the Divisional Road Engineers, and the undertakings of the Crinan and Caledonian Canals and Holyhead Harbour. There is an increase in the gross Estimates of some £172,000 which, being offset by increased appropriations in aid of 175,000, results in a net decrease of £3,000 in the charge on the Exchequer. The explanation of the gross increase is, in the main, the establishment of the new staff for carrying out of driving tests.
The Ministry of Transport is a modern Department busily engaged in providing for the changing needs of the time. It must be its constant concern to secure facilities for the public in conditions of safety, and its duties, I am glad to feel, while they have an economic and a social aspect, are almost free from partisan considerations. They call for the co-operation, as they serve the interests, of the whole community.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: The Minister has put his statement in a very concise form and with that we do not complain, but there is a large part of the work of the Department on which he has not touched at all, although, on the other hand, he has given a very good report of some sections of the work. He spoke of the Electricity Board in connection with the development of the supply of electricity, and referred to an increase of 50 per cent. in development, but he did not enter into the question of the cost of electricity to consumers. Many different prices are being charged for electricity in what are, practically speaking, similar areas, and the time has arrived when there ought to be some uniformity in the price of current. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has made any survey of the charges in the different areas in the country, because if he has and could give us that information it would not only help myself and my party but would be of interest to a large number of people who are smarting under the present inequalities and feel that it is time something was done. He spoke, also, of the improvement in canal traffic, and I for one was delighted to hear it, because it has been
disappointing to see really good canals going out of use, to a large extent, when one feels they could have rendered good service to the country. I hope the improvement will he continued and that the canals will become arteries of industrial transport, as they really ought to be. Another point mentioned by the Minister was the number of children killed on the roads. I know that the Minister is as much concerned about that as any Member in the House, and I am sure that all our sympathies are with the children in the terrible conditions under which some of them have to live and play at the moment. We wish him well in his efforts, and hope that the new system of teaching the children in school may have the desired effect, and that many of the existing obstacles in the way of securing the safety of the children will be removed. Lack of playgrounds is one of the chief causes of accidents to the children. They have nowhere but the streets in which to play, and his scheme for play streets for children will certainly relieve the situation, and be a boon not only to the children but to their parents.
The Minister also spoke about the five-year plan. I shall probably have to deal with some of these things later. He said that they were making very great progress with the five-year plan, that about half the authorities have already sent in schemes and that grants for £2,500,000 have been approved. The Minister, however, did not tell us what had become of the plans that were abandoned or taken out of active operation in 1931. Neither did he tell us whether those schemes which had undergone a certain amount of preparation were to be restarted at the point where they left off. In a speech I pointed out at that time that a large number of the local authorities, both large and small, had submitted schemes which were practically sanctioned by the Treasury and the Ministry of Transport, and upon which thousands of pounds had been spent in their preparation up to that point, and I asked whether the Ministry of Transport or the Treasury were going to refund that money to the local authorities, or whether the local authorities had to bear the burden of that cost? I do not remember getting any reply, and I should like the Minister to consider what is going to be done in that respect, because he knows quite as well as I do—
perhaps better—the very large number of schemes which have been dropped, and on which large expenditure had been incurred and had to be borne by the local authorities.
A very alarming statement was made by the Minister when he said there were 1,385 level crossings in this country. When one realises that in a country like this, taking one of the foremost positions in the world, in which the road transport system is developing at, shall I say, such a terribly rapid rate, we should have, practically speaking, 1,400 level crossings, I am sure not only this Government, but every other Government, ought to do all it possibly can to do away with these level crossings, which are a positive danger and menace to the community. I certainly hope that 1934-5 will find at least that very rapid action has been taken on the part of the Minister to see that these level crossings are removed, so that the roads may be made completely safe for vehicular traffic and pedestrians. Reference has been made to the Crinan Canal, the Caledonian Canal and Menai Bridge. What is going to be done with these? These things have been on the books for a very long time and are generally a costly kind of luxury.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: No, the Crinan Canal is a necessity.

Mr. PARKINSON: I particularly want to mention the Menai Bridge. I would ask whether it is to remain as at present, or whether immediate action is to be taken? The toll, of course, is still in operation. The bridge and the question of a new one being built has been talked about for a considerable time, and I would like the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to tell us exactly what is the position. I know it is looked upon as a beautiful piece of work. Architecturally it may be. I know it looks very nice from my point.of view, and I am not an architect. But we cannot maintain for all time things which are not meeting the requirements of the districts, and which are not up to the standard which necessity requires.
Then there is the question of new work. What has been done with a view to developing new schemes? I think a question was put not many weeks ago with regard to the Everton tunnel, Liverpool, which is very necessary to connect Kingsway tunnel with the East
Lancashire Road which cannot meet the needs of the traffic in present conditions. Unless a tunnel or some other outlet is provided there, there is going to be congestion right along the line for some considerable time to come. Although the work is a big one and requires a good deal of consideration, I think it has been under consideration sufficiently long for us to know exactly both the volume of the traffic and the cost which the scheme would be to the Liverpool Corporation and to the Treasury, and also the damage which might be done to the surface during its preparation. That is a thing which, of course, I know is necessary; at the same time, I am sure the Minister knows it as well, and in reply to a question he said—I am speaking from memory—that a census would be taken of the traffic, and that after that the matter would be further considered. I think it is very necessary that it should be considered as early as possible.
One of the main subjects about which I want to speak is the necessity for the construction of new bridges, and for the repair or reconstruction of other bridges. That has been a burning topic in this House for the last eight, nine or 10 years. We have a large number of weak bridges in the country. We have a large number of bridges banned by the railway companies, who put up notices that only vehicles of not more than five tons shall go over the bridges. That is putting a burden not only upon road traffic but upon industrial development from many points of view. I would ask the Minister whether he has anything particular he would like to say about it, because we cannot get away from the fact that the Royal Commission, reporting in December, 1930, made certain recommendations. They strongly recommended that the numerous weak and inadequate bridges should form part of a concentrated programme of bridge work
which would provide for the work to be done at the rate of not less than 1,000 bridges a year; and that special sums from the Road Fund should be definitely set aside for the purpose.
Then, in July, 1932, the Salter Report said:
In particular, we consider it highly desirable that the by-passes already begun should be rapidly completed, and that steps should be taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Transport in regard to the strengthening of weak bridges.
The Royal Commission received evidence that we had something like 7,000 weak bridges in this country. Then the Lord President of the Council, in a speech to the Worcestershire Association last year, commented on a circular on the design of road bridges in which it was said:
It is necessary to call attention to the aspect of the design of road bridges owing to the very large number of weak or dangerous bridges which are likely to be reconstructed under the Government's five-year plan for roads.
Further on it said:
Of recent years the rapid increase of traffic has impelled highway authorities to undertake the strengthening of many ancient bridges, and the building of many additional structures, with the aid of substantial contributions from the Road Fund.
Therefore, we cannot get away from the fact that the Government are fully aware of all that I am saying this afternoon, and probably have been aware of it longer than I have. But, being aware of an evil and not doing something to remedy it, is really worse than not knowing about the evil at all. I hope that the Government will do something, therefore, to help forward this necessary work.
I spoke just now about railway bridges being banned against vehicles of over five tons. In Lancashire we have 254 bridges to-day penalised in that way by the railway companies. In Yorkshire, there are 122. Altogether on the list I have there are something like 500 bridges of this sort. Does the Minister think that it is reasonable and fair that railway companies should be allowed to block a road at their own desire and whim, when that road is an artery for industrial work? I have in mind a bridge between Wigan and Preston, 15 feet wide on a very important road where every vehicle has to get at a right angle before it can cross the bridge, and where, sooner or later, we shall have an accident, a calamity, and a number of people killed, when something will be done to put that bridge right. It is worse than closing a bridge for vehicular traffic.
Something must be done, because by scheduling these bridges under the Act, the railway companies effectually debar heavy lorries, their competitors, from using them. I am not going to infer that the railway companies are doing this simply to prevent traffic, but it lends
itself to that interpretation, and anyone looking at it from that angle might say it was being done purposely. I do not think they ought to have the power or right to do it, and, sooner or later, the Minister will have to take steps in this direction. As a rule, when these bridges are closed, no alternative route is available, and so road transport finds itself seriously handicapped. From the point of view of lorry drivers the position is alarming, because they, as well as their employers, are liable to penalties for crossing forbidden bridges. So that railway companies hold over the heads of other people a sort of sword of Damocles. They tell them, "You cannot do this without our consent, no matter how great the need of the nation." I want the Minister to do something to relieve the position.
I have a statement here to the effect that the abolition of all crossings and weak bridges would cost something like 100,000,000. Whatever it costs, if this country has recovered, as we are told, 80 per cent. of its prosperity, we are getting very near to the limit. What would do for the country when we were 60 per cent. below the prosperity level will not do for it now, and if we are rising to the height of prosperity, we think it is up to. the Government to make every provision in order that that prosperity shall not be checked because of the need for facilities. According to the Ministry's five-year plan:
The Minister of Transport attaches particular importance to works directed to reducing the dangers of the road and to the reconstruction of weak bridges. The Government, he stated, aims at eliminating within five years all those weak bridges which most seriously limit the free flow of traffic, and, wherever the traffic conditions require, at providing dual carriageways, footpaths and cycle tracks, at removing blind corners, circumventing the dangers of cross-roads, reducing camber and effecting super-elevation.
He has expressed that view in this House on more than one occasion, and, speaking honestly, I believe he has a great desire to do all that can be done, but, unless action is there, unless the Minister insists upon this work being done, he can be as sympathetic as he likes, but the whole thing remains as a standing monument, I will not say of incompetence, but of neglect. I find that the Minister, in a reply not long ago, said
that we had still three toll roads and 34 toll bridges on classified roads. Is it not about time that this kind of thing was done away with 4 It may be a source of income to certain people, but there is nothing to prevent the country buying them out and making the roads belong to the country, and not to individuals. They cannot stand for progress, but only as a block to the free flow of traffic and the free movement of people in order to provide those individuals with an income, which may or may not be justified. In the construction of new roads beside bridges, I think there is a great deal to be done. I do not think we are progressing with the classification of roads anything like quickly enough. We have about 178,000 miles of roads, end of those only 27,000 are Class I roads and 16,000 Class II roads; so that about four-fifths of the roads of the country are unclassified. I do not believe in unnecessary work being done, but where work is necessary, it ought to be taken in hand and carried through.
It has been said that the cost of new roads is very heavy, and probably the breaking up of old roads and replacing them with new means a still heavier cost, but, if that cost be necessary in the interest of the country, it should be undertaken. There should be a considerable increase in Class 1 and Class 2 roads. Statistics show that those classifications have increased by just over 6,000 miles during the last 10 years. That is not a very rapid growth in a country with a population of nearly 50,000,000 people and in view of the fact that the cost of making roads is much lower than it used to be. In 1922-1923, the cost of Class 1 roads was £648 per mile. In 4932-1933, the cost was down to about £386 per mile. Here is an opportunity for the Government to spend some of their money, to provide work for the unemployed and confer a benefit upon the country. I want the Minister to understand that nobody in the country is satisfied with the present rate of progress in the making of roads and the repairing of bridges. I hope he will also do what he can to bring the canals into greater use.
Certain aspects of the Road Traffic Act are giving trouble. In particular, Section 93, in regard to the fair wages clause, is found difficult to apply. The
trade union organisations in the industry sent a deputation to the Minister of Transport on this matter, and requested him to consider amending the Section. He promised that whenever amending legislation was being considered their suggestions would have attention. That is not very much, but we sincerely hope that the fair wages clause will receive more consideration in the future. Some employers are breaking the law. The passing of the Fair Wages Resolution in 1909 and the passing of the Road Traffic Act of 1935 are a very long way apart, but there is plenty of opportunity for that distance to be covered and there should be a review of the present situation. The work of the Industrial Court is giving a certain amount of trouble to the workmen, who do not agree with some of the decisions of the court. In one case, that of the Transport and General Workers' Union versus the Thames Valley Traction Company, it was decided by the court that men employed in the garages were not employed on work in connection with the operation of a public service vehicle. That decision is objected to by the men who feel that it neither complies with the Act nor with the intention of Parliament, and they claim that the men who are working in garages upon the vehicles which are in service should be included as members of the staff.
Collective bargaining is not being carried out as it ought to be. Many employers, although their number is decreasing year by year, I am glad to say, are not doing what they should in this matter. The workers have the right to present their case before the Industrial Court, and I hope the Minister will look into their case in order to give satisfaction to the men. There is also dissatisfaction in regard to the hours of work which are being worked by motor drivers, despite the provisions of Section 19 of the Road and Rail Act, 1933. In almost every newspaper one can read cases in which there has been a breach of the Act, and, instead of fines being imposed which the employers will remember, the latter are let off with nominal fines which do not hurt them. I have a statement here which was made by an ex-Member of this House, who understands what he is talking about. Speaking on the sub
ject of the so-called lorry drivers' charter, he says:
The Minister of Transport should immediately put at least 500 examiners on to the job of scrutinising road transport licences and lorrymens waybills. The scrutiny should take place throughout the entire country, and without previous warning. It would show that violations of the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts with regard to hours at the wheel are rampant. The worst offenders are the farmers who hold Class C licences (for persons who use road transport as a subsidiary to their business). Men are terrorised through fear of unemployment into.working far more hours than the Act allows.
I do not think the Minister desires that, any more than we, and if he would undertake the work of looking into the matter he would be doing good service. It is no use Parliament making laws unless the Departments see that the laws are carried out as far as possible. Another question on "C" licences, is that of trade union rates of wages. The holders of those licences are exempt from doing what other people have to do in that respect, and I hope that position will soon be brought to an end. It was not the intention of Parliament that the Act should be preyed upon by people who did not intend to pay their men a fair rate of wages.
I now turn to the question of electricity extension. In London there has been a certain amount of development. A question was put to the Minister of Transport on 10th April this year about the new holding company, the London Associated Electricity Undertakings Limited. The question appears in the (OFFICIAL REPORT as follows:
Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. WEST) asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the proposed arrangements for merging or amalgamating a number of electricity undertakings in the London area, he will take steps to ensure that any such arrangements include provisions in the interest of employés who might be found to be redundant?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The new company formed to bring about a merger of interests is not an authorised undertaker within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, and, therefore, I have no jurisdiction in the sense suggested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1935; col. 1149, Vol. 300.]
The Minister will remember that it was 'stated during a recent Debate on electricity matters that where a worker be comes redundant he has as much right to compensation as employers have for a loss of supplies or the closing down of
part of their business. The principle that a workman who is displaced is entitled to compensation was accepted in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1925, and in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926. Section 13 of the former Act provides for compensation for deprivation of employment brought about by amalgamation. Not very long ago the same principle was included in a small Railway Bill. In all those cases it was found possible to compensate workmen for loss of employment. In any large scale development, there should also be a similar right to compensation. A statement issued on behalf of the London Associated Electricity Undertakings Limited declared:
It should he possible to effect savings in management charges and office expenses and generally to co-ordinate the distribution resources of the various companies. The policy will be to provide electricity throughout the whole area at more uniform prices.
Something should be done wherever these companies are combining and taking over large areas, to secure compensation to displaced workmen, and to see also that a uniform price is established and that one side of a street should not be paying twice the price for electricity that is being paid on the other side.
In regard to electric railways, which were referred to by the Minister, I have a statement by the General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen who said, according to a newspaper report:
The Southern Railway had spent £12,000,000 on the electrification of 360 miles and the year's passenger receipts on the electrified sections showed an increase of £1,850,000, or over 25 per cent. over the last year of steam working.
There was a guarantee of compensation for workmen who were displaced. I suppose compensation means being provided with other work. It is, at any rate, a protection against being unemployed. I suggest that the Minister should lay a statement in regard to present electricity conditions, showing the number of companies who are operating, the number of news associations and how they react upon the interests of the community. We are entitled also to ask for a census of electricity charges over the whole country. We have a right to know exactly what electricity charges are imposed for the consumption of electricity. Electricity charges are becoming a scandal, and sooner or later we shall have
to discuss them, unless ameliorative measures are taken which will give greater confidence to consumers.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: In introducing the Vote, the Minister touched on almost every department of activity of his Ministry. They were extremely interesting, and it is very difficult to avoid the temptation of commenting upon the lot. The first question that the Minister mentioned was that of electricity. I had no intention at all of dealing with the question of electricity this afternoon, but the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) has already said a number of things about it with which I entirely agree, and I am sure that the Minister will forgive me for feeling a little sceptical about the hopes he has expressed as to the outcome of the electricity conference which is about to be held. He told us that he thought that as a result we might get a little nearer to the unification of electricity charges. That is a very desirable thing, if we can get it, but I remember the discussions about six months ago in this House on the last Electricity (Supply) Bill, and there did not then seem to be very much hope, from what we were told on that occasion, of the principle being so altered that unification of charges would become possible.
The Minister tells us that since 1929 there has been an increase of 50 per cent. in the electrical output, and in ordinary business one would imagine that that would at once produce a lower charge for current. So far, however, as the part of the world with which I am more closely connected is concerned, we do not get any reduction at all; we still have the same grievance, which was placed before the House last December, that the charges for electricity in North Wales are about double what they are in the rest of the North Western area. I hope the Minister has some grounds for the optimism which he has expressed in regard to the unification of charges and that the Parliamentary Secretary, if he has the opportunity, will be able to give us some idea as to whether it is really practicable, and not merely a pious hope.
Another reference made by the Minister which I had not anticipated hearing this afternoon, because I thought it was rather a dangerous thing to do, was his reference to the efforts which had been made
by the Ministry towards co-ordination of transport. I should have thought that it might have been better to leave that for the time being, because, so far as I recollect the discussions on the Road and _Rail Traffic Bill, a Measure which was brought in with that object in view, the then Minister of Transport, in winding-up the Debate on the Third Reading, said he hoped that the Traffic Advisory Council was going to do all that was necessary to co-ordinate traffic facilities and that he hoped that the various interests concerned would come together on this plan very quickly, because otherwise, if they did not do so, the House would be forced to take measures which, beside the powers of that Bill, would seem pale and ineffective.
The Traffic Advisory Council has been in existence for 18 months, which in my opinion, with an urgent problem like this, is a long time, but I do not recollect having seen anything emerge from its discussions. The question of transport coordination was a burning one at the time of the introduction of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill. We were told that it was partly for that reason and partly for road safety that the Bill was so urgently required. I do not know much about road safety, because apparently the number of vehicles on the road is increasing all the time. I do not know whether the number of haulage contractors' vehicles is increasing or not, but certainly the number of vehicles generally is increasing. We were told that there was congestion on the roads, and that the Measure was designed to deal with that question. So far as general co-ordination is concerned, if one judges from the proceedings in the Traffic Commissioners' Courts, co-ordination between road and rail is as far away now as ever. I should be glad if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some information as to whether the Transport Advisory Council have taken any steps at all to go into this matter, and, if they have, when we are likely to hear about them.
The main activities of the Minister have been devoted during the last 12 months to the question of road safety, and I am sure that, in his willingness to receive every idea and every suggestion which would help towards bringing about that desirable state of affairs, the whole House will be prepared to give him backing. I should like to deal with one or two of
the points which the Minister himself has raised, and which I think ought to be dealt with more particularly, with a view to reducing accidents on the roads. It is all very well to talk in general terms about reducing accidents on the roads, and to have experiments like pedestrian crossing-places in London and things of that kind. One may get figures from them, or one may not, but I am one of those who always draw a distinction between London and England. London is not England. It is but one part of England, and there are conditions in London which are not to be found any where else. Therefore, an experiment might be tried here, and might be successful, which would simply be a waste of time in another part of the country because of the difference in conditions.
There are, however, some factors which are the same all over the country. One of these, to which the Minister has already referred, is that of brake tests. I remember referring to this question a year ago, when the Road Traffic Bill of last year was introduced. At the present time there are, and have been for some time, brake tests for certain classes of vehicles, but the Act of 1930, which authorised the making of these tests, does not lay down any standard. So far as I can remember, it simply lays down that brakes must be in efficient working order and must be properly adjusted. "Efficient working order" and "properly adjusted" are very wide phrases, and their interpretation is apt to depend upon the particular individual who examines the vehicle. As the Minister is no doubt aware, a paper was presented last week to which I think the attention of Members of the House ought to be drawn. It gave the results of experiments carried out in Toronto on the testing of the brakes of private vehicles. I am sure that the Minister knows of these experiments, and probably he has seen the paper, though I do not know that it has had general publicity. It bears out the very argument that I used last year.
In Toronto, in 1928, 8,000 vehicles were subjected to brake tests, and 81 per cent. of the vehicles so tested were found to have defective brakes. In 1929, a voluntary testing service was set up by motorists in Toronto for the testing of brakes. From that year until last year, the number of vehicles tested has varied
from 100,000 to 166,000 each year, and in no year were more than 10 per cent. of the brakes found to be defective. There has been no commercialisation of this testing; the motorists themselves have forced their own garages into providing a service of this kind, which would enable them to have their brakes tested so that they could pass the official police test at any time. For a test of this character to be of any use, it must not be sporadic; it must be continuous, and it must be persisted in. Whether the two things can be taken together or not I do not know, but it is strange that, of all the cities on the North American Continent with a population of 500,000 and upwards, Toronto, during the last five years, has had the lowest number of fatalities and injuries on a pro rata basis of any city in North America. That may not be the real cause, but probably it is a contributory cause, and I think the Minister ought to consider very seriously whether he will not do something of the same kind here. There is no reason at all why brakes should not be tested continuously, and, as I have said before, it is better to test the brakes before an accident happens than to find out afterwards that they were defective. You may fine the owner of the vehicle, but you cannot bring the dead man back to life. It is a step that ought to be taken without delay.
Even with the best brakes in the world, however, it is not possible to pull up a car with safety unless there is a proper road surface. That question has been laboured time and again in this House. One imagines that it is not often that the present Minister of Transport is caught napping, but I believe he has been caught napping this year. If he had been doing what he intended to do, he would not have had £4,500,000 in his fund for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take, and I am amazed, when Ministers of Transport in the past have had millions filched from their funds, that any Minister of Transport should contemplate to-day leaving anything in his fund which could be taken. The Minister tells us that he is giving £2,500,000 in grants this year, which is so many times more than the amount granted last year, but it is only about half of what has been taken from him. Certainly, there is nobody here who would not agree that that
money could be well spent, and profitably spent, on the roads of this country at any given moment. As the hon. Member for Wigan has said, many schemes have been shelved for a long time waiting for money. There was one in my own Division, where two years ago a small grant was applied for in order to remove a dangerous corner. We were told that there was no money left, though I believe the cost was only £250 or £260. A year ago I again made application, and received the same reply. Now, two years afterwards, the money is forthcoming, and the road at that corner is going to be widened, but it is very annoying to think that we have had to wait two years for £250 when there was £4,500,000 lying idle all the time.
The Minister, in speaking about his safety measures, referred to the immense increase in the number of vehicles that were being licensed. It may be a very good argument to say that the Act passed last year, with the 30 miles an hour speed limit, has not had the effect of reducing the number of vehicles on the roads—that it has not worried the motorists, or discouraged them from buying cars; but it is a very much stronger argument in favour of dealing at once with the road system. The roads are already enormously congested, and, as everybody knows, that is a contributory cause of accidents. If the Ministry of Transport is going to continue the policy which it has adopted during the last three or four years, I think the time will arrive when the whole of that policy will have to be reversed.
The Acts of 1930, 1933 and 1934 have all one principle in common, and that is the placing of restrictions upon this new form of transport; and each time restrictions are imposed the same argument is adduced in favour of them, namely, that the roads are congested and that regard must be had to the question of safety on the roads. The result is that we are really trying to make road transport fit old roads, instead of making the roads fit the new type of transport which obviously has to use them. You cannot stand in 'the way of development of this kind for very long without suffering. This industry is now a great industry, and it demands that steps should be taken without further delay to develop the roads on sensible lines. The hon. Member for Wigan has referred to the Everton tunnel 
proposal, to connect the Kingsway Tunnel with the East Lancashire Road. I see no reason why the Minister cannot be bold over these matters, and really go "all out" to get his job done. There is no difficulty about money. I understand that, in the case of the Mersey Tunnel, the proportion which is to be paid by the Liverpool Corporation, and is not provided for out of the tolls, is spread over a period of 60 or more years, and the annual charges are very light. Every- one who lives in that neighbourhood and who uses the tunnel knows what an immense advantage it is to the city of Liver- pool and to the whole district. Similar developments are required in other places. If ever there was a time when they might be carried out with profit, now is the time, and, if that principle was adopted in paying for the Mersey Tunnel, I can- not see why it should not be adopted for other schemes which are equally necessary and urgent.
Sometimes one hears people giving the:Minister of Transport great credit for the introduction of the 30-miles speed limit, and on another occasion the remarks are not quite so complimentary, but most people seem to forget that they are crediting or discrediting him according to taste, when really he has had nothing at all to do with it, and it was his predecessor who carried the job through. He has assured the House on many occasions that he is very anxious that the thing should work smoothly and that people should not become irritated. There is a great deal in trying to prevent motorists from becoming irritated unnecessarily, because the psychological effect of irritation on a motor driver is very bad for public safety. I have watched drivers come out of 30-miles speed limits, and where the restricted areas are what I would call common sense areas, that is to say, where restriction begins with the congested area and ceases with the end of the congestion, the motor driver comes out of the area in a perfectly normal manner and resumes his way without any possible trouble or bother. I have also noticed that where a restricted area is continued for a mile or a mile and a half along a 60-foot road, without any housing and no lighting, as happens in so many cases, the motorist goes along the road fuming the whole time against the Minister of Transport and the people who made the restrictions, and when he
gets to the end of the 30-miles limit down goes his foot and away he goes That is the psychological effect which people cannot afford to ignore. It is bound to have an effect. I have watched it so often myself. I am not going to say that I have been guilty of it, but the temptation is certainly there.
I mention that matter, because there are so many of these restricted places; they are scattered all over the country. The Minister has told us that he has had these places submitted to him and that he has made representations to the local authorities, but I wish that he would try and get some of these things done a little quicker. After all, now is the time, for it is during the summer time that there are more people on the road. It is rumoured that these people may have to express their opinion on the Government before next summer, and I should have thought that the Minister would have been careful to remove all cases of irritation as quickly as possible.
I have seen some statements, and in fact I have heard that the Minister has been interesting himself in the psychology of motor drivers with regard to motor accidents and has been consulting, and trying to obtain information from, people whom I said last year ought to be consulted. I do not know whether he has had any reply, but I feel very strongly that the question of following up and sorting out motor drivers is going to be more important every year. The Minister has told us that in the voluntary tests which have already taken place for drivers, 10 per cent. of the applicants have failed to pass the driving test. These are the people who have come forward on their own free will because they think that they are capable of passing, and yet 10 per cent. of them have failed. The others are only going to come when they must. The statement I made last year, and which I repeat now, is that however severe a test you put upon new drivers, after all, you only prevent the people from coming on to the roads who are not fit to drive. That is a great gain as far as it goes, but it does not remove from the road the people who have caused and are still causing accidents. They are there all the time, and there is no means, as far as I see, of getting at them, unless you have an all round test.
Some sort of collaboration ought to take place between the Minister and the insurance companies. I am sorry to have to labour the point, but I feel that it is important. Under present regulations, if any motorist hits a person or a vehicle or an animal a report must be made to the police, and it is from those statistics, I presume, that the Home Office and the Minister of Transport obtain the figures with which they supply the House and the country. But it is purely fortuitous if a motorist happens to hit an individual or a vehicle. It is as easy to hit a man as it is to hit a lamp post. If you look through the records of motoring insurance claims you will see that many cases of personal injury arise from, smaller and minor accidents. The Minister ought to collaborate with the insurance companies and see whether some method can be arrived at which will give him more information than he has now. He cannot demand the notification of very accident, but he could get a great deal of information from the insurance companies.
I feel that some day he may have to change his whole idea with regard to this insurance question and the third party insurance certificate. At the present time the third party insurance follows the car. The car is insured, and it cannot be licensed until it has a third party insurance. That is presumably to protect the public. The third party insurance gives no information with regard to the driver. Ultimately, I am convinced Parliament will have to deal with the matter on a new line, and probably it will have to make third party insurance follow the driver instead of the car. If you make third party insurance follow the driver, you will have the whole of the history as to driving and third party accidents and be able to sort out these people. I should like to congratulate the Minister not only upon what has happened to him to-day, but upon his energy and the very kind way he has treated everybody who has tried to approach him on transport matters during his term of office, and I hope that the efforts which he is making in his Department will be successful.

4.52 p.m.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I should like to preface my remarks by offering my
sincere congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport upon the great distinction which has been conferred upon him. He and his Department have shown conspicuous activity, intelligence and energy, and, above all Departments, it appears to he moving with the spirit of the times, and the speech to which we have just listened was an example of oratory, admirably compact and foreshadowing great improvements and reforms in the future. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Roberts), nor indeed the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) except to disagree with him in his view with regard to canals in this country. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) would agree with me in saying that he did not wish the Crinan Canal to be blocked, nor do I wish to see the Caledonian Canal blocked. They indeed serve their purpose in their day and generation and my information is that recently the amount of traffic going up and down those canals has very greatly increased.
I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend very carefully, and I was astonished to find the ratio in which the roads of this country exist. The first-class road is a very small proportion, and the second-class road is very little larger, but the third-class or the unscheduled road really amounts to four-fifths of the roads of this country. That is a very remarkable fact which is borne in on those of us who represent rural constituencies. While the Ministry of Transport, as at present constituted, are perfectly prepared to give a great deal of support to the arterial and luxury roads, the first-class roads, and indeed to give a grant of 75 per cent. downwards to the second-class roads, nothing whatever is done for the main part of the roads of this country, namely, the unscheduled or unclassified roads in the rural districts. I should like to make a plea to my right hon. Friend upon this very point. In every parish, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, there is the country road. We do not want a luxury road or one of those fine, beautiful arterial roads. All that we want is a serviceable road which will enable the farmer to use his light motor car or to bring his loaded carts into market. As things are we do not get a grant at all from the Ministry of Transport for these
roads. If they are to be kept in repair, the burden must be upon the local rates, and with depopulation increasing every day, the rateable value of the country parish is infinitesimal. You find probably an area of something like 20 square miles where a id. in the pound would produce only £20. How can you expect people to live in country districts with conditions such as these?
I wish to make a special appeal to the Minister of Transport on behalf of my colleagues in the North of Scotland particularly, and of my colleagues in the rural parishes of England and Wales to consider these special roads. It is no good him talking about a happy and a, contented peasantry and largely about commercial enterprises. It must be remembered that the basis of the industry of this country is agriculture, and nothing has been done with all these millions in the fund which has sometimes been robbed and raided. We want part of that money to be spent on the rural roads, which are really the life blood of the people who work hard in the main industry in the country districts of this country. I know that at 7.30 there is to be a break in the Debate, and, consequently having made my point, I am going to sit down with an appeal to my right hon. Friend, who is so full of new ideas and has the courage to come forward and carry them into actual working effect, specially to consider the request that I have made to him not for my own constituency only but for every rural constituency in the country.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I should like to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir Ian Macpherson) by first congratulating personally the Minister upon his promotion. I also welcome the fact that, owing largely to the Act of 1934, it has been possible to reduce accidents in spite of the increase of traffic, but I am not entirely satisfied with the progress that has been made, or that every possible effort is being made. I ask the Minister whether the Road Traffic Safety Advisory Council are satisfied. It seemed to me that when the council were appointed that they might well perform very useful work, and I am not sure that that has been the case. I would ask whoever replies to this Debate
how often that council have sat, what recommendations they have made, whether their recommendations have been complied with, and, if not, why not? Has it been purely on grounds of expense or have they just been overruled by the Minister? In short, I would ask whether the Safety Advisory Council are functioning I do this not because I want to detract from the efforts which the Minister is making, but I feel that there is room for such a body because I do not believe that all suggestions regarding safety have met with quite the attention they deserve.
I will give a few instances. There is the question of motor car construction. In a great many of the new types of car it is impossible from the driver's seat to see either of the front mudguards. People may say that they may know their car and know instinctively where the mudguard is, but there are a great many people driving to-day who do not know their cars, a great many of them driving half a dozen cars in a week, and they do not know where their mudguard is, and whether they miss a thing by two inches or hit it is largely a matter of chance. Then there is the point about square kerb-stones on rural roads. Where there is no foot-path I can see no advantage in having a square kerb-stone. Obviously if a car skids and runs into the square kerb, it is going to overturn. I know that people say there are few occasions when cars actually overturn. I agree, but the fear of overturning makes people drive in the middle of the road instead of close to the kerb—and this happens even more with bicycles than with cars. The cyclist, because he is afraid of running into the kerb, rides in the middle of the road where you do not want him to be.
There is also the old question of footpaths. I welcome the Minister's statement regarding footpaths, but I would like an assurance that he is pressing upon local authorities the importance of these footpaths being footpaths with a really good surface. It is no good providing a rough path for, people to walk upon. Women, especially, walking in thin shoes, will not use it; they will walk on the road instead. Money spent on footpaths of that sort is doing no good to anyone. These last two points I know are points for the responsible local authorities, but
I do think that where the number of accidents has proved that sufficient steps are not being taken the Minister must not hesitate to step in himself. That is why I feel that a properly functioning Safety Advisory Council might strengthen the hands of the Minister. I would even suggest that a Royal Commission or a Committee should be appointed with terms of reference to tour every road in the country—or with a sub-committee to tour every road in the country—and to make recommendations on what they see.
It is all very well talking about accidents, but a great many accidents are not accidents at all; they are inevitable certainties. Everyone knows that when you drive over many roads you come to places where obviously it is only a question of time before somebody has a crash there. There are blind corners, corners not banked up, signs wrongly placed, skidding surfaces, alley-ways where children run out and which ought to be protected by railings. Although the Ministry is meeting these dangers step by step, there is room for more urgent progress and the Minister, should not allow £4,000,000 from the Road Fund to be taken away while dangers like that remain.
The only other point I would deal with is the question of cycle tracks. I believe the Minister is meeting with opposition from cycling associations. I do hope he will not allow that opposition to worry him. I would be the last person to say anything against cycling clubs; but I believe the opposition is prompted very largely by the fear that when the cycling tracks have been built the time may come when the Government might call upon cyclists to contribute towards the upkeep of their tracks. I am not suggesting that this fear is well-founded, or that it might be right for cyclists to be called upon to do so, but I would say to the Minister that any such considerations must not be allowed to weigh with him when he is up against the question of the safety of cyclists, hundreds of whom now get killed every year.
Finally, I would urge—and this is perhaps unnecessary in the right hon. Gentleman's case—that the Minister should not be afraid of experimenting. There are still a lot of expedients which might be given a try-out. There is the question of compulsory stopping of motors where the "major road ahead" signal
is placed. I do not mean by that that motors should stop compulsorily when going out of every small lane or country road. There, the motorist emerging on to the main road knows it is his duty to see that all is clear. But where a secondary road in constant use crosses a more important road and the "major road ahead" sign is used, I do believe we might be well advised to follow the American example of compelling cars to come to a full stop before crossing the major road. The possibility of having compulsory pedestrian crossings—either across or over, or under roads—is well worth exploring. I think,.also, that the Minister might consider the possibility of publishing annually a map of the road accidents in each county, so that this might be put up in the hotels and other prominent places to remind people of the death-traps there are around them in their own neighbourhood. Those are some of the things in the Minister's power, and I would urge him to try them out if he think they are useful. The public conscience is so shocked by this toll of the roads, that I am sure the public would give him full support, and that the only thing that they would not tolerate would be inaction.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. WEST: I should like to congratulate the Minister on his decision to reserve certain streets in London as play streets for children. I think that is an admirable idea, and I wish it could be extended on a large scale in the poor parts of London, both in East and West London. That would lead to a great deal more happiness, and I am certain that there would be fewer accidents in the streets. The Minister referred to the successful completion of the electricity grid. I should like to make one extra point about that. The materials used in constructing the grid were practically 100 per cent. British. That is an important point, because hon. Members often urge the importance of "buying British," and here we have a public authority going to the 100 per cent. limit—which is far better than the private enterprise company does in this country. I hope that hon. Members who argue against public ownership will remember that important point.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the expansion of the consumption
of electricity in this country by 50 per cent. over a recent period and compared this with a 10 per cent. average increase in consumption throughout the world. I think that is not a fair comparison. I think a better comparison would be to take developed countries only, and not the whole world. It is true to say, I think, that this is not an advanced country from an electrical point of view. If the Minister compares our consumption per head of the population with the consumption in Canada, Norway or Sweden, he would have a very great surprise. I think that he would discover that these countries, not to mention the United States, have doubled or trebled their consumption of electricity per head. It is true that consumption here may have increased considerably in comparison with some other countries because we were at the bottom of the league, so to speak, and the club at the bottom can advance a long way, whereas the club at the top cannot go very far. As we were one of the backward countries we may very well go up 50 per cent. compared with other countries without this being a very remarkable achievement.
The Minister also referred to the important matter of the distribution of electricity, and to the need for more unification and co-ordination generally. In Greater London we have scores of electricity undertakings with different voltages, different frequencies, and different charges. If some co-ordination could be achieved among these undertakings it is obvious that great economies would result to the consumers. Here is an example of the differences in charges. The area served by the Notting Hill Company adjoins Hammersmith, part of which is in my division. The standard price for lighting in Notting Hill is 40½. per unit, while in the locality next door it is only 20½. per unit. The only difference between those two undertakings is that the Notting Hill Company is a private company, and across the road is a public ownership company. I believe that 2½d. is less than 4½d. That being so, do not let us hear again that the public ownership company cannot compete with the private company. The Minister referred to the substitution of trolley omnibuses for trams. I think that is a sound idea, but there is a difficulty about it. What is happening in London is that when you tell a local authority that you are going
to change over from trams to trolley omnibuses, the road seems to go out of repair for two or three years. In Gold-hawk Road, in my division, I believe the road has not been really repaired for many years because it is known that the Transport Board some day some years from now is going to change over to trolley omnibuses. In the meantime, the road is in a shocking state from the point of view both of the pedestrian and the motorist. I hope the Minister will use any means in his power for ensuring that such roads are kept in repair when the change-over is not to come for a few years.
The Minister referred to the reduction in the number of accidents, and thought that this was due to the restriction of speed in built-up areas. I think so, too. But if that is true, I do not see that there is any sound argument for de-restricting so many roads. It always strikes me that when a road is de-restricted the average motorist thinks that means he can go at any speed he likes. I notice that the motoring correspondent of the "Evening Standard" few days ago mentioned a car which was going at a "cruising" speed of 65 miles an hour. I saw that even in the "Daily Herald" the motoring correspondent said that this new car is capable of doing 90 or 95 miles an hour, and "cruises" along at from 70 to 80 miles an hour. I think that a speed of over 60 miles an hour on a main road in this country is very dangerous and wrong. The hon. Member who has just sat down talked about cycling tracks. Cyclists do not go at 60 miles an hour. On an average they do not go at more than 15 miles an hour; and I never did an average speed of more than 12 miles an hour. But in motoring papers I have seen references to some cyclists doing 25 miles an hour. It is a miracle if cyclists do that. The hon. Member just said that he wanted cycle tracks to get cyclists off the road. I do not think that the cyclist going at even 25 miles an hour is nearly as dangerous as the motorist "cruising" at over 70 miles an hour. I was told recently, in answer to a question, that cycle tracks would cost something like £4,000 a mile if they are well made; and that cycling tracks alongside only the first-class roads would cost something over £100,000,000. I suggest that if you want to segregate anybody
you should not segregate the more or less harmless cyclist, and that you might be better employed in segregating the dangerous person who is "cruising" at 70 or 80 miles an hour in a motor-car.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Surely the safety speed of the car depends upon its efficiency. One car travelling at 60 miles an hour might be safer than a small and badly constructed car travelling at 30 miles an hour.

Mr. WEST: I have heard that argument before. At the same time we have been told this afternoon that 10 per cent. of those who have gone in for the driving tests fail. That 10 per cent. represents mainly the younger entrants to motoring, and if 10 per cent. of the younger generation fail, how many would fail among the men and women over 50 years of age who are now driving? At least a big percentage. Taking one per cent. of our million motorists it means that 100,000 of the present motorists are unfit to drive. When I read of motorists cruising at 70 miles an hour—the hon. Member opposite suggested that it might be safer going fast in a big car—I wonder if the person who drives at such a speed is one of the 10 per cent. of persons unfit to drive.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The question of driving at 60 or 70 miles an hour is out of order on this Vote.

Mr. WEST: I am sorry to be out of order, and therefore I will come to my final point. If anyone goes for a ride on the top of an omnibus in London he will be surprised in the congested periods to find a tremendous number of private motor cars in the central area. There may be 40 persons on the omnibus and only on the average 1 persons in the private motor car. The Minister suggested closing certain streets as play streets. I suggest that certain central and other areas in London ought to be closed to private motorists. The Minister may not be willing to adopt this suggestion at the present time but in a very short period the congestion will become so severe and the speed will become so slow that something will have to be done to lessen the number of private motor cars on the roads and streets of London.

5.17 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The Minister gave us a clear, deeply interesting and wide-ranging survey of the problems and responsibilities of his Ministry and showed that grasp and mastery of the administration of his Department which has won him that recognition of which we all read this morning with so much gratification. I do not propose to follow him into the various interesting issues of policy which he raised in his speech, but, as there are many hon. Members who wish to take part in the Debate, I want to confine myself to one problem, a very difficult and refractory one, with which his Department has to deal, and that is the problem of the roads in the Highlands of Scotland.
The main roads in the Highlands are more and more being used by heavy traffic. We have now regular lines of big charabancs coming right into the Highlands from many of the main centres of population in the south of Scotland and in England, and there is also fast traffic moving about from great centres of the south coming on to our roads touring or doing trial runs. On the main road through our country districts cars travel from John o'Groats to almost every possible destination in this and other coun tries.
lip till, now we have received a grant as high as 95 per cent. for our main trunk roads but in the centre and the south of Scotland they have been more fortunate and have received 100 per cent. grants. With regard to the 95 per cent. grant the Committee will realise, when I point out the figures to them, that even the remaining 5 per cent., when it comes to 5 per cent. of the cost of reconstructing a great trunk road for great distances at a cost of £2,500 a mile, is an immense burden upon a county like Sutherland, where the yield of a penny rate is only £250, or in a county like Caithness where the yield of a penny rate is only £125 You cannot do, it out of the annual yield of the rates, and therefore the county councils have been compelled to borrow for a period of 15 years. The Minister will see what unsound finance it is to borrow for a period of 15 years for expenditure upon an asset which wastes far more rapidly than that. Therefore, so far as our main roads are concerned I would urge upon the Minister that there is no solution of the problem of our main
trunk roads in the Highlands of Scotland except to give us 100 per cent. grants. I. shall revert to finance a little later.
There are also the classified roads other than the main trunk roads, and here again we have the same story of increasing use and therefore increasing cost of upkeep. Many of the roads which are called classified are now so narrow that in that, and in many other respects they would be regarded as dangerous further south in other counties. When I come to the unclassified roads I associate myself with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir Ian Macpherson). It is an urgent problem to deal with the unclassified roads in the Highlands of Scotland. We used to get a grant for them but that is now merged in the block grant and our resources are wholly inadequate for dealing with these roads. It is not merely that it is impossible to reconstruct them and bring them 'up to improved modern standards like the roads in the more prosperous counties further south. The point is that these roads are growing worse. For example, the road surveyor reported to the Sutherland County Council two or three months ago that the conditions are growing worse from month to month and from year to year. The roads are not standing up to the traffic and there is urgent need for reconstruction of these unclassified roads. I know that to some extent I am forcing an open door, but I want to force it quickly and to open it wide. The Minister of Transport in a circular letter which he recently issued to the local authorities said, dealing with the five year programme, that a separate list should be submitted in respect of improvements to unclassified roads and that it was intended to increase the allocation for unclassified rural roads for the benefit of the agricultural community. I want to hang on to that and to impress upon the Minister the great importance of these unclassified roads for the benefit of the agricultural and fishing communities.
I want also to refer to a particular class of unclassified road, to which my right hon. Friend referred, and that is the township or parish road in the Highland counties. Up to now these roads have been left out because it has been said that they only serve small scattered communities. They are not left out further
south, because there you have not the same problem. You have these roads connecting the villages in the southern counties but there you do not have the small scattered communities which you have in the Highlands, with their little parish road, without any contribution from the Minister of Transport to help the local authority to keep it up. While these roads fulfil a real public service—from the standpoint of the local people they perform a greater public service than the luxury main roads—they are the roads upon which the fishermen, the farmers and the smallholders depend when they are going about their daily avocations—the attitude of the Ministry of Transport is: "Put your road in a condition fit for motor traffic and then we will consider whether we will give you a grant to keep it up." But we have not the resources to put these roads into a condition fit for motor traffic. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland helps us here and there with a little grant, but the available resources are hopelessly inadequate to deal with this problem, and the Minister of Transport ought to give us some help out of the Road Fund. These roads are getting into a very much worse condition than they have ever been, because although they are not supposed to be used by motor traffic, they are so used. The traders are more and more using motor traffic when they bring supplies to the homes of the people. Moreover, many of these little roads lead to objects of exceptional interest and beauty, ruined castles, broths and objects of archaeological interest and a good many heavy touring cars are hammering down the roads and breaking them up until they are now worse than they have ever been, with the result that there is a crying need for help to be given from the Road Fund for the reconstruction of these parish roads.
I was dealing with the main roads just now and I would ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to relax a little the standards of construction on the main trunk roads in the Highlands. It seems to us in the Highlands to be unduly luxurious that money should be spent on these extraordinarily easy gradients and such like luxuries. Could not the standard be relaxed in the Highlands and the money saved by such relaxation be spent on the provision of
ordinary good roads for the people of the country districts on which they go about their business. The contrast between the great luxury main roads which the people see going through the country and the broken tracks which are all that the local people have seems unfair and unpleasant, and therefore to give these township roads a share from the Road Fund would be a wise and politic act on the part of the Minister of Transport.
If there is any idea lurking in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport or of any hon. Member that these people should pay for their roads, let me reply that they are paying now, paying more relatively to their resources than the people further south, and paying undesirably more in relation to the cost of other public services than the people further south. I have a schedule of the roads in my own county of Caithness, where we have a rate of over 11s. On housing we spend an amount equal to a rate of 2½d., on the police 6d., on public health—which means the provision of water supply, or such provision as we can make, for it is painfully inadequate-10d., on public assistance is. 9d., on education 2s. 6d., and on the roads 3s. 10d., or 50 per cent. more than we spend on education. Surely, it is undesirable that we should be starving public health and housing in this way and that we should be spending on education an amount equivalent to a rate of 2s. 6d., while we are spending 50 per cent, more on the roads. There is therefore a clear case for giving us this additional help.
On the other hand, our resources are small and dwindling. Agriculture is depressed, the fishing industry is in even a worse condition, and the next most lucrative source of revenue, sporting rentals, have been declining in recent years. There are signs that the tide of prosperity is beginning to flow again in this and other countries and, we hope that it will soon reach the Highlands of Scotland, but in the meantime they are deeply depressed and it will be a long time before local resources are replenished. We have this problem constituted by the heavy tourist traffic—and according to the Minister of Transport an increasing tourist traffic because he says that there will be a fresh influx of vehicles on the
road this year—coupled with the low valuation of the districts. Although improved communications are an urgent need of the people and indeed a condition of recovery, the burden of road construction is excessive and out of proportion to that of other public services. Therefore, I beg the Minister to give us this relief. I saw in a newspaper only yesterday that the London County Council proposes to ask for increased grants on the ground that they pay 13.5 per cent of the road taxation. If other cities made the same claim nothing would be left for the counties at all; and it is the vehicles from the cities which do the destruction to the roads in the counties. I hope that the Minister will turn a deaf ear to that claim and give us help in the counties where we need it. We need a 100 per cent. grant for main roads, and a special grant for unclassified roads and for parish roads in particular, because they are so much heeded by the people.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. FLINT: We must all rejoice with the Minister of Transport that there has been a steady improvement in the number of accidents on the road, but we cannot be satisfied with the reduction that has up to the present taken place. An hon. Member has said that it is easy to detect where the accidents are coming from, but that we can do nothing for the moment. I want to urge the immediate necessity of doing the obvious thing, and not wait until we have made safe every dangerous corner or straightened every bend. I want the Minister, if he will, to exercise the powers which have been given him under Sections 11 and 12 of the 1930 Act. Over 90 per cent. of the charges laid under those two Sections are laid after the accident has taken place, after the dead have been buried and the injured in hospital. It is too late. If any hon. Member cares to go upon the roads of the country, it does not matter in what county, and stand at a dangerous crossroad, somebody within a comparatively short time will be doing a dangerous act. It does not result in an accident because a car is not coming in the opposite direction, but sooner or later that man is going to cause an accident. If you once get into the state of mind of approaching cross-roads too fast or going round a blind corner passing another vehicle you will do it habitually until you
are pulled up. There are some people on the road who do it habitually, and these people who sooner or later have a small accident will sooner or later have a larger one. They are in a state of mind when they think that they can go round corners on the wrong side, or approach cross-roads too fast. It, therefore, seems to me that the necessary and obvious thing is to watch these dangerous corners. Police should be stationed there for the purpose, instead of spending their time in dealing with minor and petty offences, If they were set to watch dangerous cross roads and bends where accidents happen, we should have a prosecution before the accident happened, and dangerous and careless motorists would be taught their lesson. What are the police doing to-day? I have two examples from one district. A lady driving a car fainted, and the result was 'that she collided with a telegraph pole. An anxious policeman arrived on the scene. What did he find? He found that, although she had signed four of her driving licences, she had not signed the last one, and the police afterwards were occupied in taking particulars for a summons for not having signed her licence. In the other case, the driver of a public service vehicle, owned by a well-known omnibus company, had an accident. Who caused the accident does not matter. After the accident, the driver of the car with which the public service vehicle had collided gave his card to the driver of that vehicle, but although he could see the name of the owner of the omnibus written largely on the vehicle, its driver did not happen to give his name. Of course, the driver ought to have reported the accident within 48 hours. He was 24 hours late, and again the police were occupied with a prosecution for being 24 hours late in making the necessary report. During that time someone in that county was killed, because a motorist who was habitually in the habit of driving round corners on his wrong side was not caught.
The time has come when the Minister should urge on the police authorities that they can do their duty to the community much better by using trained men—not the village constable who rides a bicycle—men who have learned to drive a car and who have had experience on the roads, to watch these dangerous points so as to detect the causer of accidents before they happen. If a motorist knows
that at any cross roads he is likely to be pulled up if he is guilty of dangerous driving, or is likely to be caught when going round blind corners on his wrong side, he will not do it, and we shall see the number of accidents go down.
Those who spend a considerable portion of their time in taking part in prosecutions as the result of motor accidents on the road know that it is difficult to get fair play from public tribunals in petty sessions who have no training or experience on the roads. I am not making any attack on individual justices of the peace, but if you get away from the South of England into the Midlands you will come before benches of magistrates not one of whom has any legal or judicial training, and upon which there is not even a magistrate who drives his own ear. When you want someone to examine an applicant for his licence you appoint a qualified man, but when you want someone to judge whether a motorist has been guilty of dangerous or negligent driving you bring the matter before a tribunal which has no experience and no knowledge, and which is bored to death in dealing with endless motor car cases. The time has come when we must have stipendiary magistrates equipped with knowledge and learning to try motor car cases, men before whom defendants can appear with the knowledge that they will have a fair trial and will be judged by people who are competent to decide a case.
It is a distressing and deplorable feature that after all the efforts that have been made there are still a great number of cases where innocent people injured on the roads cannot get compensation because the person driving the car or the motor cyclist is not insured as the company refuses liability. As a result of the decision of the High Court what is happening is that where there has been a misstatement of fact in the report, the insurance company is entitled to repudiate liability whenever they discover it. A serious accident takes place. The insurance company look at the record of the insured and asks other insurance companies if he is insured with them. They discover that he has a long record of claims and of accidents, which he has not disclosed on the proposal. The result is repudiation, and, maybe, a widow goes without compensation. An insurance company, of course, must be entitled to
know the risk they are taking and have all the available information, but some method will have to be found not only to protect insurance companies but to protect the public. The time has come when there should be some protection to the public in order that they should receive the compensation to which they are entitled, and not be denied it because of some misstatement in a proposal form. There is a way by which both the public and insurance companies can be protected, and make certain that no man will dare to make a misstatement in a proposal. I ask that this matter shall be considered.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: May I congratulate the Minister of Transport on the public services be has rendered in regard to various aspects of transport during his term of office? He is quite worthy the promotion which has been given him, upon which I congratulate him. I only desire to make one or two observations on some aspects of the case which have not yet been touched. The Minister has said that a means has not yet been found for dealing with inefficient brakes on cars. Hon. Members will agree that it is not only necessary but essential, if road casualties are to be reduced, that we must be sure that every mechanically propelled vehicle is efficient and roadworthy. If they are not, they are a menace and a danger. All public vehicles are examined from time to time, but, as far as I know, there is no examination of any kind of privately-owned vehicles. A little while ago I took a deal of time and pains to point out exactly the position in regard to efficient machines. Frankly, I will say that I was asked to write an article for a newspaper on this very subject. I went round to a number of garages and service garages in order to elicit some facts on the subject. I was 'surprised to find that they estimated that the vehicles which they garaged were, in the case of 40 to 70 per cent., inefficient in brakes, steering or wheel wobble. I could not get any analysis of each of these details, but I found that the vehicles were defective in one or two of those respects or in all respects.
I am sure the Committee will consider that it is perfectly right that my right hon. Friend the Minister should take
what steps he considers necessary to prevent drivers taking out inefficient vehicles with guilty knowledge. I have always held that even the most efficient driver is a public danger on the road while he is in charge of an inefficient machine. It may be asked, what is the remedy? I respectfully suggest that every application for a licence should be accompanied by a certificate of efficiency. That would not call for a huge staff of inspectors to give the certificates. Any competent garage proprietor or motor manufacturer or distributor should be allowed to issue these certificates of efficiency, and it should be an offence either to issue a false certificate or to accept a certificate knowing it to be false. If that were done we should know that at the time the licence was issued the vehicle was efficient. Further, should there be an accident, arrangements should be made so that the police can order that car to be re-examined to see if it was efficient prior to the accident, and if it be found on examination that the car was not efficient, it should be an offence for a person to have driven that car upon the public road when that car was inefficient.
Let me say a few words with regard to the tests for drivers. The Minister has said that of the people who have come within the voluntary test 10 per cent. have been eliminated. We all know that there are upon the roads today drivers who are so bad that they could not pass even an elementary test of that kind. The proposition then arises, how are those bad drivers to be roped in and forced to have an examination or test? I respectfully suggest that where two drivers are involved in an accident, and when upon examination it is found that their driving licences were issued prior to the compulsory test, it should be compulsory for those drivers to go through that examination or test before their driving licences are renewed. Let me give an illustration. The other day in the Brompton Road a lady was driving a car to turn into Kensington Road. Another lady was driving a car from Hyde Park Corner to turn into Kensington Road. They were not going fast, but for some reason that I cannot imagine they both lost their heads and the cars collided. One of the cars jumped the kerb and went on to the pavement, and it was only by the grace
of God that no pedestrian was killed. Those two drivers would certainly not have been allowed to control those vehicles, in my view—I have been driving for over 35 years—had they been compelled to go through a driving test. I submit that those two persons were a menace and ought to have been compelled to go through a driving test before their licences were renewed.
Let me say something about the 30miles-an-hour limit. I think I am correct in saying that when the limit was imposed it was the intention of Parliament that it should be imposed in built-up areas in the true sense of the term. The definition laid down by the Minister is much too wide, and the local authorities have interpreted it in a way quite different from the intention either of Parliament or the Minister. It is perfectly true that the Minister is doing his utmost to decontrol a large number of roads that were controlled, but I suggest that until these so-called controlled roads are decontrolled in what are known as cat-and-mouse areas, where the police lie in wait to pounce upon a motorist where there is no danger at all, and where a prosecution takes place in such circumstances, it shall be a good defence for the motorist to show that the road upon which he was caught was not a built-up area in the true sense of the word, although it might come within the definition because there were lamp-posts within the 200 yards limit.
No one knows better than the Minister that there are to-day a large number of roads which are controlled and which by the widest stretch of the imagination cannot be described as being in built-up areas in the true sense of the term. I am convinced that my right hon. Friend is just as anxious as the Members of this Committee that the motoring industry should not be adversely affected and that motorists who are law-abiding citizens should not be irritated by vexatious prosecutions where no danger at all exists. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend that a speed of 50 miles an hour in some places is less dangerous than 15 miles an hour in other places. I have made these few suggestions for the serious consideration of my right hon. Friend, and I hope that in my humble way I may have made some little contribution to the Debate.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: The Minister gave to the Committee a very clear and very interesting review of the work of his Department. Quite naturally he was very enthusiastic about the success which his Department has made, and, equally naturally, he was rather silent on those aspects of the Department's work which are subject to criticism. I think that most members of the Committee and everyone who is interested in road development would agree that one side of his work have been done with a doubtful efficiency, however well the others may have been carried out. I am referring to the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the Road Fund. Everyone will agree that in the countryside and in the towns there are very many roads that require improvement. We have already had this afternoon speeches from two right hon. Gentlemen pleading for better attention to country roads and lanes, and I think that they made a very good case indeed. In the congested areas of the large towns there are still many roads that are narrow and dangerous and that hold up the traffic, and they are the roads, as well as the country lanes, on which the Road Fund money should be spent.
Everyone knows that this year the Road Fund was raided to the extent of £4,500,000, and the question must arise in the mind of all who follow road matters, how is it that where there is such a demand for road improvement, for avoiding congestion and getting rid of dangerous roads, how is it, in view of such an obvious and urgent demand, that there was such a large amount of money in the Road Fund unspent and available for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seize in order to balance his Budget? I offer one explanation of this anomaly, and it is simply this: In his administration of the Road Fund the Minister works on such regulations and under such conditions that so far from encouraging local authorities to get. on with their road work, certainly in built-up areas—it is only of built-up areas that I can speak with any experience—his administration has discouraged the local authorities from carrying out work which is vitally necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman's regulations are very lengthy and detailed, and I
would draw attention to two in particular which discourage the use of the Road Fund for the purpose for which it was started. The Road Fund normally makes a grant of 60 per cent. for Class I roads where a major improvement is contemplated, and 50 per cent, for Class II roads. But that grant does not go towards the cost of the improvement; it goes only towards the cost of the work and the site value of the land which is taken over for the widening of the road. That may be all right in some areas which are not built-up, but in a built-up area such as London it means that instead of 60 per cent. we get very much less. Very often the major cost of carrying out a road widening in a built-up area in cities is the cost of compensation, the buying out of existing tenants, rehousing the people living on the spot, and similar matters, towards which the Road Fund makes no contribution at all.
There are innumerable cases. A typical one in London is that in a Class I road, instead of geting 60 per cent. Road Fund grant, we get only about 20 per cent. The balance has to be paid out of the rates, so that the ratepayers, instead of being able to look to the Road Fund for a major contribution towards improvements, can only expect a very small contribution indeed. I give two examples. There was an improvement in North London in connection with which a 60 per cent. contribution, based on the total cost of the work, would have amounted to £8,551, instead of which the grant from the Road Fund was 60 per cent. on the site value which only worked out at £2,731 or 19 per cent. of the total cost. In another case which is quite typical, when the Road Fund grant was worked out, it only came to 20 per cent. instead of 60 per cent. That regulation, which was brought into effect in its present form in 1933, definitely discourages local authorities from carrying out improvements in congested areas because they have to bear almost the entire burden themselves.
Further, the Minister whose duty it is to encourage the improvement of roads is, by giving such small grants, defeating the very purpose for which the Road Fund was instituted. Let me give the example of another regulation which tends to keep the Road Fund in the bank and to prevent the money being spent
on the roads. There is a regulation, which is strictly adhered to, that once works have been carried out, in no circumstances can any Road Fund grant towards them be made. It happened that during the crisis in 1931 a local authority carried out work which had been approved by the Ministry. The Ministry said to them, "We are very sorry, but we have not any money in the Road Fund and we cannot contribute." But the local authority knowing the improvement was desirable and that the Ministry had agreed to it carried out the work. About three years later, the work having been finished, they came to the Ministry and said, "Now you have money in the Road Fund; give us a contribution." But the Ministry replied, "No, we shall give you no contribution. We would rather keep the money in our pocket than allow it to be used for the roads."
A striking case occurred recently in which, through an error on the part of a local authority in London, a grant in connection with a most important improvement on a Class 1 road was not applied for. Shortly, after the work had been done they applied for the grant and the Ministry, although it was a most important road—it was Gracechurch Street as a matter of fact—refused to make the grant because they said the work had already been done. The letter of refusal is dated 23rd March this year and contains this striking phrase:
It is regretted that at the time the original application was made"—
that was in, 1933—
and when it was renewed in January last 
that is January of this year
the Fund for grants for improvement schemes had been fully allocated.
So that in January of this year the Ministry said to a local authority which was carrying out a most desirable widening, and one which had the full approbation of the Ministry, "There is no money in the Fund; it has all been allocated and we cannot help you." But three months later the Fund had accumulated so much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer collared it. Therefore, I say that as regards road improvement the Minister has not carried out his duty properly, in that he has not used the funds at his disposal for the purpose for
which they were meant but has hoarded them and the hoard having reached a sufficient size, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has diverted it from the purpose for which it was supposed to exist. I hope that the regulations will be made more equitable and that they will be made to carry out the intention for which the Road Fund was formed. The Ministry of Transport, I maintain, ought to be the one body in the country concerned in encouraging proper road developments, such as widenings and the elimination of dangerous corners and the rest. Speaking with considerable personal experience, as chairman of the Highways Committee of the London County Council for the last year, I say that so far from encouraging this work the Ministry has been discouraging it, in that it has been placing the greatest difficulties in the way of getting adequate grants for road matters. In cases in which it is, I think, perfectly plain that grants ought to be made grants are refused.
I have nothing but praise for the Minister and his officials for what they have done in the way of consultation and help, but in this major matter of grants, so far from helping road improvement in London, the Minister's attitude, as I say, has been discouraging. The Minister speaks of a five-year plan. He has been speaking about it for some time. A five-year plan may be anything. It may be very desirable or it may not, but it would almost.appear from past experience as if the Minister were talking about something great in the future in order to hide present delinquencies. One thing is certain. Unless he changes his outlook towards road improvement, unless he changes the temper of the present administration in that respect, the five-year plan will be useless. It is no use having a plan on paper unless behind it there is a Ministry encouraging and helping local authorities to carry out the work. Otherwise the five-year plan will not be worth even talking about.
It is wrong, I think, to blame the Chancellor as he has been blamed for raiding the fund for his own purposes. The person to be blamed is the Minister of Transport, who allowed that accumulation to pile up, in spite of the strong demands of local authorities for more help.
The Minister having allowed the fund to accumulate in that way, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can scarcely be blamed for having taken the money when he wanted it to balance the Budget. The Minister's responsibility to the Road Fund is one of the most important if not the most important of his duties. I hope he will see to it in the future that the Road Fund will be used for the purpose for which it was founded. I hope the Ministry will adopt a forward and constructive policy of helping and encouraging local authorities all over the country to carry out the road improvements which are so urgently necessay.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: The Minister of Transport has had so many bouquets bestowed upon him this afternoon that by now he must be, metaphorically, almost covered by them, but I cannot help adding my word of praise. When, soon after his appointment, the right hon. Gentleman showed that he was taking his office seriously and was going to deal with the evils connected with transport, many of us felt a sense of thankfulness and satisfaction which has been increased by his achievements since. I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to continue on the line he has been following hitherto, and not to listen to speeches such as that which we have just heard suggesting that he has been a failure, and that he ought to have clone this or that which he has not done. He is doing splendidly, and I wish him all success in the course which he is pursuing.
This question of transport can be approached in many ways, and the Minister is approaching it in many ways, and in some directions he is meeting with success. It is my earnest hope that he may continue to follow out those lines on which he is meeting with success. I take one example, and that is the stopping of the use of motor-horns during certain hours of the night. When the proposals was first made some people held up their hands in horror. "What," they said, "travelling at night without motor-horns. It is asking for death. What a hideous suggestion." But the Minister had the courage, in spite of hostile criticism, in spite of the opposition of the Automobile Association, to carry out his plan. It has been splendidly
successful, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that at no distant date there will arise a demand for an extension of that provision in the matter of hours. There is no doubt that an extension of the period could be made with advantage, and I look to the Minister to do it.
Another matter to which reference has been made this afternoon is the institution of the test. Although the test has been adopted only in a very partial manner, it has proved valuable. Various automobile organisations were very much opposed to the test. The Royal Automobile Club in January, 1934, said it was opposed to the compulsory examination of applicants for drivers' licences, and it was of opinion that the number of serious accidents caused by lack of skill on the part of drivers was negligible. I wonder how that body and other bodies like it, such as the Scottish Automobile Club, the Commercial Motor-Users' Association and the London and Provincial Omnibus Owners' Association think of the results which have been obtained. We now know that 10 per cent. of those voluntarily coming forward and submitting themselves to what is only an elementary test, have been found to be people who cannot be trusted to drive motor vehicles. Think of what that means. Think of the danger which that 10 per cent. would offer in the old days when they could obtain licences without difficulty. Imagine that percentage of people, incapable of properly driving cars, being granted without hesitation licences to murder and slaughter—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does my hon. Friend realise that these tests do not really decide whether a man is a capable driver or not? They apply a certain number of technical tests, but it is the fast and furious skilled driver who is far more likely to bring about Accidents than the 'cautious driver who is less skilled.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Another matter to which I would refer is the speed limit. I believe that, if persisted in, it will do a great deal to reduce the slaughter on the roads. I am sorry to learn on good authority that since the limit came into operation it has not been working quite satisfactorily. When the speed limit was introduced, drivers of cars observed it,
but as time has passed they have become less careful as to keeping the limit, and I am told that it is now being very largely exceeded. That is a very serious matter. One of the reasons is that the police are becoming less active, and they are becoming less active partly because of the slackness of the magistrates. The speed limit will not be a success unless the magistrates do their duty, and I appeal to the Minister to see that they do their duty. Whether in conjunction with the Home Office or by some other means, I appeal to the Minister to insist that the magistrates do their duty. Last year Mr. Dummett, the magistrate sitting at Bow Street Police Court, said:
My belief is—and I don't mind if I am reported or not—that the dangerous driving in this country, resulting in hundreds of thousands of mutilations and deaths, could be stopped if the Courts did their duty.
The magistrates do not do their duty. They often in the most cynical way refuse to do it, and unless the magistrates are kept to their duty, then the speed limit will not work. Give it a fair chance, and it will work.
Before I sit down I want to ask the Minister of Transport whether he thinks of the future at all—I mean in relation to transport. According to the Ministry of Transport at the end of February 224,000 mechanically propelled vehicles were licensed in this country, an increase of 12 per cent. as compared with the same date last year. The number of motor vehicles, at the present rate of increase, will be doubled in eight or nine years. Already Great Britain has more motor vehicles per mile of road than any other country in the world. What is the Minister going to do under the threat conveyed in those facts? If we double the number of our motor vehicles in eight or nine years, what will the state of things be in eight or nine years' time? My own view is—and some hon. Members. may laugh, but I ask the Minister to keep it in mind—that ultimately we shall have to ration motor cars. We shall have to have a waiting list, and people who want motor cars will have to wait their turn. An hon. Member says we shall all be flying by then, but I am not sure that flying is going to make such great progress as some people seem to think. At all events, we have to look to the future, and short of some such method as rationing and giving the people in their turn
the opportunity of owning or driving motor cars, I see great difficulties ahead. With these few suggestions I leave the matter to the Minister of Transport.

6.18 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), who has just spoken, has rather blotted the copybook of a Debate which otherwise must have conveyed a sense to the Committee that we are trying seriously to deal with this huge problem of safety on our roads and the legitimate use of the roads by all kinds of users. Until the hon. Member for Lichfield spoke, there had been a general feeling of unity with regard to this matter, and the congratulations which have been offered to the Minister of Transport were, I think, very well deserved. When we listened to his opening statement this afternoon we realised possibly, more than we have done in the past, that we have a man in charge of the Ministry of Transport who has indeed his heart in the matter of the improvement of the conditions on our roads throughout the country.
I am none too sure that it is right and proper, however, in any circumstances to exclude streets from the use of motor vehicles for the purpose of children playing in those streets. That is not because I am against the provision of some form of playground for children, but I think it is rather a wrong form to take to encourage the idea in the child's mind that the street is a place in which to play. I think it is rather the duty of the Minister and those with whom he has influence to endeavour to get more playing fields and open spaces for the children to play in, than to encourage them to play in the streets. After all, motor traffic is a legitimate form of road user, and I hope the Minister will give further consideration to that question. The Debate this afternoon has proved that there is an enormous awakening of a real road sense. Until we had the unfortunate speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield, we had heard nothing about motorists going out solely for the purpose of murdering people on the roads, and I think it was most unfortunate that such an element as that should have been introduced into what otherwise was a harmonious discussion.
I think the Minister has proved his skill in the things that he has done up to the present, and I am sure he will lend a sympathetic ear to one or two suggestions that one may make to him. It is to be remembered that there is a very heavy toll on the motorist himself. We hear in this House, and rightly, that pedestrians are slaughtered up and down the country by the unfortunate use of the roads, but we very seldom hear of the large number of motorists and motor cyclists who themselves pay part of the toll of the roads, and I think it is as well that that side of the question should not be lost sight of, and that some effort should be made to stop some of these accidents. One wonders why these accidents occur to the motorists themselves. In very many cases they are due to our road system, to the fact that there are still in this country dangerous corners, and that there are places and thoroughfares in our towns and cities which are death traps. Those are the things on which I think the Minister should concentrate.
An hon. Member opposite mentioned the raid on the Road Fund. I think the Committee knows my views on that matter. I think it was nothing short of a scandal that money should be taken out of a fund which was originally provided, under some sort of guarantee, for the very purpose of making our roads safer. I think the road surfaces of our country require a good deal of unification. I was delighted to hear that the Minister contemplates setting up a committee, or has already set up a committee, to consider road construction. One goes about the country and comes across roads on which tar has been spread and on which a man then comes along with a shovel and throws out a lot of flints or ground pebbles, which are more dangerous still. It is little wonder that on such surfaces as that we get many of the accidents that occur, particularly to pedal cyclists. For a pedal cyclist to go on to ground pebbles on an improperly set tarred road is nothing short of courting disaster.
I have brought forward before the question of the utter need of taking every measure possible to prevent motorists' attention being drawn off the road itself. With the plethora of signs that one sees on the road side and the host
of distracting colours, particularly with regard to this latest phase of the restricting and de-restricting signs, it is impossible for a motorist to give that concentration that ought to be given to the road itself. If he has to glance out of the corner of his eye along the sides of the road to find out whether he is going into or out of a restricted area, it is almost impossible for him to devote his attention to the road directly ahead of him. I have before made the suggestion, which I commend to the Committee, that the road itself should be marked. If the sign were on the surface of the road, in a red band straight across the road, or some coloured line kept exclusively for the information of the motorist, that he was now entering into a restricted area, or that he had passed a restricted area—it would not matter whether it was daytime or nighttime—it would be an outstanding sign for him which would give him the knowledge that he had to start slowing down because in the next 50 or, 'better still, in the next 100 yards, he would be within a restricted area.
If the motorist had no need to look to the sides of the road, but only required to look at the road itself, he would see that red line across the road, and I am sure there would be very few motorists who would attempt to keep up a speed of over 30 miles an hour, any more than they ignore those white lines, which are not compulsory, but which have made our roads so very much safer, down the middle of the road. That white line is obeyed sub-consciously by almost every motorist throughout the country, and it has no penalty attached to it. The answer may be that this would be too expensive, but when we were discussing the speed limit and such matters in this House, that was the very point made, that we must not mind the expense, because human life was at stake. Human life is as much at stake to-day as it was then, and I suggest that this is one way in which safety on the roads might, be very considerably helped, and the motorist also helped not to get caught and fined and given a lot of trouble. It may be argued that we already have enough lines of various colours, but only this afternoon we had put before us a new scheme for the playing streets in London, where the kerbs are to be
painted green. If they can be painted green in that case, I am certain that lines could be painted across the road in the ease which I have mentioned.
The Minister spoke of the great benefit that the speed limit had had in levelling up traffic. As a matter of fact, the levelling up of traffic has not been carried out to the extent to which it might be. We still have certain obstacles in the way, the main cause of which, I think, is the differential speeds at which certain types of motor traffic are allowed to travel. The heavy goods vehicle is limited at the present time to 20 miles an hour. In order to pass such a vehicle, the overtaking vehicle must travel at a greater speed, and that means a cutting-out into the road, which would not be necessary if the heavy vehicle were travelling at 30 miles an hour. It may be said, "Yes, but we do not want to increase the speed of these heavy cars." It should be remembered, however, that these heavy vehicles have to pass a very severe test in addition. Brake tests, driver's tests, tests of endurance and fitness for the roads—these are all imposed very severely, and, what is more important still, passenger vehicles of the same weight on the road are allowed to go at 30 miles an hour. The passenger vehicle is often made with exactly the same engine and underworks as the heavy goods vehicle, and if the passenger vehicle and the double-decked omnibus can travel with safety at 30 miles an hour, I am certain a heavy goods vehicle can do the same. If they were both allowed to do 30 miles an hour, it would be an additional aid to safety by making an even flow of traffic and preventing cutting out.
There is another type of vehicle for which I would like to plead, namely, the articulated vehicle. It is a peculiar structure. It is a goods-carrying van which is super-mounted on an engine-bearing front, which has nothing to do with the carrying capacity of the complete vehicle. It is only the rear portion that is pivoted on to the front part, and that is the goods-carrying portion. This articulated vehicle, weighing under 22 tons, can travel at only 20 miles an hour. It is the type of road vehicle most similar to the horse-drawn vehicle. It is much more easily used in traffic and more easily turned in a, tight corner than the rigid four- or six-wheeler, and yet this vehicle
can travel along the road only at 20 miles an hour, whereas a rigid four-wheeler or six-wheeler of the same weight can go at 30 miles. I have no doubt that the Minister has given matters like this his attention, and I would like to ask him whether he would give us a reason why these two types of vehicle are allowed to travel at only 20 miles an hour instead of 30. I am not bringing this forward as a criticism, but as a suggestion which will make for the more even flow of traffic.
Another matter which has a great bearing on road accidents is that of lighting. Questions have been asked in the House with regard to the rear lights of mail vans. Hon. Members who have done motoring know that the mail van has a little light about the size of a cyclist's reflector on the roof of the van. Here again the question arises of the necessity of the motorist's vision being on the road. It is not easy to look upwards to see that red light, and it is very small when you do see it. I suggest that all rear red lights should be at a certain fixed distance from the road surface so that a motorist knows at once, again subconsciously, that when he sees a red light at that distance from the road surface there is a vehicle in front of him. There is a growing practice among some vehicles, particularly goods vehicles, to put head lights in a very high position. That, again, is a source of danger. These are only a few suggestions which I should like to make in all seriousness, and which I hope will be considered by the Minister, whom I again congratulate on the successful way in which he is conducting the work of the Ministry of Transport.

6.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: This is a subject on which I should like to address the Committee for several hours, but there is only one point I shall raise, because my ration in this Debate is two minutes and I am going to stick to it. The Minister of Transport is, so to speak, the custodian for the motorist's case and for the Road Fund. I would like to remind him of the words in the Roads Act which set up the Road Fund. The words are these:
There shall be established for the purposes of this Act, in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury for the purpose, a fund to be called the Road
Fund, and subject to such regulations as may be made by the Treasury with respect to accounts and investments, the Road Fund shall be subject to the control and management of the Minister.
That is very definite, and I believe that those words were put in so that, once the money was segregated into this Fund, it should be entirely at the disposal of the Minister. Now we come to the speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year, in which he said—
Accordingly, I have informed my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that I propose to transfer it to the Exchequer.
It was a question of £4,000,000. It did not matter whether the Minister of Transport agreed or not. The Minister, however, protested, for the Chancellor went on to say—
I should say that my hon. Friend has expressed some reluctance to assume even temporarily the role of the dying Sir Philip Sydney, but I have endeavoured to console him with the assurance that if, in fact, during the course of the next year or so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1935; col. 1631, Vol. 300.]
and so on. It is clear that there was a direct disagreement in the Government, and I say emphatically that the action of the Chancellor was not according to law, it was not according to the wishes of the House of Commons, and it was not in accordance with the original Act. That Act gave the power to the Minister, and it is high time that a stop was put to this marauding of the Road Fund by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even with the agreement of the Minister of Transport. It is clear that in this case there was no agreement and that the Minister of Transport was bullied into it. If the right hon. Gentleman represents the motoring element in this country, he will at that Box to-night say how he was bullied into parting with this £4,000,000.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. HALES: I must confess to being a little surprised at the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the segregation of roads as playing places for children. I am wondering what will happen to the inhabitants of the houses in these roads with regard to removals and delivery vans. Will the tradesmen's vans be stopped at the beginning of the street and deliveries have to be made by hand? I can imagine the difficulties of the people who will be compelled to live in those streets for the rest of their lives
if no removal vans are allowed. I wish to make four suggestions which, if adopted, will, I can say with assurance, reduce casualties on the road by 25 per cent. in three months. One of the suggestions has been applied in Italy and Norway and has reduced casualties 25 per cent. in three months and 50 per cent. in six months. It follows that if one of the suggestions which I have to make would have that effect, what would be the state of things if my three further suggestions were adopted?
My first suggestion may be ridiculed. As I have travelled about the country I have many times seen some deliberately reckless driving that makes me want to get out of my car and have the driver arrested. When we see such a case, what is to prevent us as Members of Parliament taking the number of the car and sending it to the Ministry of Transport or to a police station, not with the idea of making oneself a policeman and instituting a prosecution, but in order to let the drivers know that they are under the observation of some mysterious body of 600 people all over the country? Such a system would make drivers think twice before driving recklessly and Members of Parliament could in this way do their part towards making the roads safe.
My right hon. Friend knows what my next suggestion is, and I can assure him I shall keep making it as long as I am within these walls. He has got to the half-way house with his own desires, and has achieved a magnificent success. I refer, of course, to the zones of silence. The Prime Minister said last week that for the first time he could repose quietly in his bed in Hampstead without the raucous noise of horns disturbing his slumbers. May I ask my right hon. Friend to experiment with a 24-hour silence zone in one county for one month? I must thank him for the assistance he has given me. When I have approached him I have always been courteously received, and I cannot say that for some Members of the Government. He has always given me an audition, and I think that all he needs is a little bit of extra push and encouragement in order to bring upon him the blessings of the population.
My right hon. Friend has the power to carry out my suggestion and there is no need for legislation. By a stroke of the
pen he can put into force a regulation which will bring silence to our roads and safety to the pedestrian and the motorist. The pedestrian now crosses the road perfectly sure that if any motorist is about he will have the blast of a strident horn to blow him off the road. We could stop the young speed merchant who dashes through traffic irrespective of what there is on the road by taking away his horn. We should then cut at the root of the trouble because he would not take the risk of dashing along without a horn. Once it is known that no horns are to be sounded, every parent would caution the children to look right and left before stepping off the footpath, because they would not get any warnings from horns. I would like my right hon. Friend to celebrate the great honour which has so rightly been bestowed upon him by adopting the suggestion and in that way save the lives of at least 1,000 people every year.
Every motor service vehicle is compelled by law to have a fire extinguisher, but the private car is not controlled in that way. It has been argued that we do not wish to trouble the motorist with too many regulations. Why is it that the only time we hesitate to control him is when he is dangerous to himself and to the public? Last week I questioned my right hon. Friend with regard to an accident in the North of England to a lady and her father who were in a car. In a collision the car turned over and the two occupants were rendered unconscious. A man from the roadside tried to get them out, but the heat from the burning car was terrifflc, and he collapsed. Providentially, another car arrived with a fire extinguisher. They could not put out the fire with one extinguisher, but it kept the flames down while they got the two unconscious persons out. One, unfortunately, had been so severely burned that she died, but the other was saved. It may be said, "What is the use of a fire extinguisher 1 It would put out only a small fire." But everyone knows that in the case of such an accident there is very soon a queue of cars drawn up, and so there would really be 20 miniature fire engines at one's service, for every car would be carrying the means of succour to the occupants of the car on fire. Surely what is required of a taxi-cab should be required in the case of other
vehicles. It is incomprehensible to me that there should be any difference in the case of the two types of vehicles, and why a private individual in his car does not enjoy the same safety as the man who is riding in a taxi-cab.
It may be said that if a car-owner neglects to take care of himself it is his own look-out, but that is not the whole of the case. A car may carry a fire extinguisher, but in a collision the occupants of it may be rendered unconscious as in the case I referred to. Those people have taken steps to guard their own safety, but if the other motorists who come up have not fire extinguishers the occupants of the car in collision may be burned to death although they have taken every precaution. Has the Minister realised that he, of all men in the country, holds in his hands the lives of the thousands of people on our roads? No man in this House has ever held such a terrible responsibility for saying, "Thou shalt die," or "Thou shalt live." That is the prerogative of the Minister of Transport to-day. It is a serious position. It is a case of life and death. When accidents were at their peak things got to such a pitch that every time the clock struck the hour there was one fatality on the roads of Britain. If it were a case of war there would be casualty lists at which the whole country would be horrified, but because these fatalities are spread over the country and are not brought to our immediate notice we are apparently apathetic, callous and indifferent.
Now I come to something which has never been mentioned here, although it is insisted upon elsewhere, in India among other places, and on the Continent, that a, car ought to be parked on its correct side of the road. A car draws up on its wrong side. When it moves off again it is starting from its wrong side, and to get on to the correct side the driver has to cut right across oncoming traffic, with his glaring headlights staring into the eyes of those in the oncoming cars. All that is necessary is for the car to be turned round so that it is in the stream line of traffic when it stops, ready to follow the flow of traffic when it starts again.
I have put before the right hon. Gentleman a number of suggestions with which he could experiment. If he could
realise, as I am telling him now, that in three months he would have reduced the number of casualties by 25 per cent. he would be the proudest man in the' House. I do hope that he will try the experiment of the 24-hour silence zone for even one month in one county. Let him try it in Staffordshire, my own county. We should have notices in the Press that on the first of the following month the zone of silence would be in operation throughout the 24 hours of the day. Every morning the children at school would be told what was going to happen, and the parents on their part would be certain to "rub it in" as well. Then there would be meetings. Personally, I should be willing to stay in the county for a month, addressing meetings every night in order to let the people know what was going to happen. I am certain that at the end of the experimental stage it would be found that we had inaugurated a system which would reduce fatalities and casualties by 25 per cent. at least. That being so, surely it is not too much to ask the Minister to try the experiment. If it is a failure he can stop it, and if it is a success he can extend it throughout the country, and then we should have not only a silent and peaceful countryside but one in which we were not reaping a daily harvest of human lives, a quite unnecessary sacrifice.

6.50 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I do not propose to pursue the interesting practical suggestions made by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales) but I intervene in support of the point brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). In calling the attention of the House to the action of the Treasury in this matter the hon. and gallant Member is bringing forward a matter which transcends any question of party politics. For some years past the Treasury has been increasing its pretensions to control all other Government Departments. On more than one occasion I have had to stand up to the Treasury against these growing pretensions. Here is a case in public which is almost more glaring than any that have been happening. There may have been many other examples, behind the scenes, of attempted invasions by the Treasury of the prerogative of Ministers, but this one
is a glaringly public instance, and although, no doubt, the Minister himself did not feel able at the time to take the action he would have liked to take I think it is necessary that we in this House should protest from all sides against the action of the Treasury in endeavouring to supersede and control the action of Ministers within their own Departments. It should be the right of any Minister to put before his colleagues his own proposals and to have them discussed and decided by the Cabinet. It is not for the Treasury alone to decide questions of national policy of this importance, because, as the hon. and gallant Member pointed out, the action taken here was directly contrary to the terms, and I believe to the intention also, of an Act of Parliament. There is no suggestion that it was a Cabinet decision. If it had been the Minister would no doubt have accepted it. Here is a case where the Treasury intervenes on an act of policy and takes away from the Minister funds subscribed for a specific purpose and specifically placed in his charge. I have only intervened to add my protest to that of the hon. and gallant Member against this intrusion of the Treasury, and its improper assumption, in my opinion, of an authority which it ought not to possess.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: While I entirely subscribe to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) and the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) I feel that it would be placing the Minister in a somewhat difficult position to call upon him to give chapter and verse in explanation of the discussions between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Road Fund was raided on the last occasion. But this is a matter of importance to other hon. Members, and of considerable importance to myself as representing a Division of Durham, for a reason which I will explain later. I should like to join in extending congratulations to the Minister on the considerable degree of success which has already attended his efforts to secure a reduction of road accidents. It has been a very difficult and thankless task, and he has incurred much criticism and ill-informed ridicule; but even his most ardent critic would not, I
am sure, grudge him praise for the lives he has already succeeded in saving, and I feel that hon. Members in all parts of the House will willingly subscribe to that meed of approbation.
After that, perhaps I may be permitted to mention one or two points of criticism. A distinguished Member of this House, himself an ardent motorist, who was connected at one time with the Ministry of Transport, and who bears a strong resemblance to the hon. Member who spoke from a bench behind me just now and first raised the point further elaborated by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), said at a gathering last week that in regard to matters affecting the road transport industry the bulk of Members of Parliament were like a lot of blithering old women. Having sat for at least six months on Committees dealing with matters affecting the road transport industry, I am bound to say that I find myself in a large measure of agreement with him. I am not now speaking of matters concerned with road safety, but, of the wider field of legislation affecting the motor transport industry, particularly as embodied in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. As one who has had to deal in a professional capacity with the administration of those Acts, I find myself asking whether the monumental interference with the road transport industry by recent legislative enactments has been justified and was really worth while. What we do know is that the debit side of the ledger is of immense size, and it is to my mind somewhat problematical whether balanced to any extent by the items which can properly be set on the other side of the ledger. It is difficult to be satisfied that sufficient benefits have accrued from the repressive and burdensome legislation to which road transport in both its branches is now subject. I am not blaming the present Minister. He simply inherited certain legacies from his predecessors in office. There are, however, a number of points to which I would like to direct his attention, and, despite what may have happened in the past, I am sure he will bring a perfectly open and impartial mind to them.
There is a genuine belief on the part of those engaged in the road transport industry that they have not been given a fair "crack of the whip," that their
case has not been dealt with impartially, and that they have been sacrificed to the interests of the railways. Let me be perfectly frank. I completely share that view. However, as the Debate has centred largely on road safety measures, and as I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry wishes to reply, I will not attempt to go into those items now. I can only express the hope that opportunity will be given soon for a full day to be devoted to a Debate on the Ministry of Transport Vote. There are points I would like to have raised in connection with this opposition of the railways to road transport. I have no doubt that the Minister has had his attention drawn to an article written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I would also commend to him for his attention the speech which was delivered only last week by Mr. Sewell, the President of the Road Haulage Association.
As I say, I hope that another day will be given at an early date for further considering points such as the railway representation in transport commissioners' courts, appeal procedure, the period of validity of road service licences, restriction on duplication of road service vehicles, facilities for experimental services and so forth. But for the moment will confine myself to endorsing the remarks of previous speakers and urging that the question of weak bridges might be tackled more resolutely by the Minister. I have given an undertaking not to delay the Parliamentary Secretary in the making of his speech, and while there are a number of points to which I would like to have referred, I do hope that when these questions are finally brought before the Minister he will give them careful and impartial consideration.

7.3 p.m.

Major OWEN: Before the Minister replies, I would like to ask him two questions. The first is, what is the position at present with regard to the Menai Bridge? The users of that bridge are, of course, grateful to the Ministry for the reduction of the tolls that have been made, but it would be a great help to all users, and to the counties of Carnarvon and Anglesey in particular, if some definite information could be given as to what it is proposed to do with that
bridge in the future. It serves as the only means of communication between the island of Anglesey and the mainland, and it is one of the main roads of this country. It would be of great assistance to all users if some definite information could be given with regard to the position or the future intention of the Ministry with regard to the bridge. Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister to inform me if he can what is the present position with regard to the proposed new road from Trevor to the main road leading from Carnarvon to Hereford. It is a minor question, but it is important in this respect, that it would enable a large number of people in the village who are not employed to get some temporary employment, and to relieve them from their difficulties.

7.4 p.m.

(Captain Austin Hudson): The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT
I must, first of all, apologise to the Committee for having to speak so early, but, as the Commitee knows, we have the subject of Waterloo Bridge coming on at half-past seven, and it was felt that I should try to deal with some of the points raised in detail before the Debate comes to an end. I do not think, not having had time to look into the points raised by the last speaker, that I can give him an answer straight away. With regard to the road he mentioned I should like to have detailed information about it, and perhaps I can give the answers he asks for at some future date.
We can say that the Debate this afternoon has resolved itself into a discussion of three main topics which are dealt with in the Ministry of Transport. The Debate also shows how diverse are the various activities for which my right hon. Friend is responsible as head of that Ministry. The main topics dealt with were road construction and road safety, with one or two speakers making some references to electricity. About construction, and by construction I mean the works for which Road Fund money can be spent, I would say, as the Minister has said, that we have a five-year programme, which is the biggest thing that has ever yet been attempted. As an example of our earnestness in pursuing this policy, I would repeat, what the Minister has already said, that this financial year we
have already approved some 22,500,000 as against £600,000 last year. As regards road safety, no experiment which we consider would be worth trying will be overlooked, and we are determined that the roads, as far as the Ministry is concerned, shall be made safe for people travelling on them.
Now as to questions of detail. The first is with reference to electricity. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts), and the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West). One hon. Member asked me about statistics—as to whether he could get any information about charges. Statistics are got out annually by the Electricity Commissioners, and he will get the information he requires there. With regard to uniformity, for which all hon. Members asked, we cannot pretend that that has yet been achieved, but we do know that, as a result of the Grid, uniformity is greater than before. One other hon. Member asked for uniform charges. I do not think it will ever be possible to get uniform charges. What we want is a uniform method of charges. There cannot very well be uniform charges when so many different factors come into consideration—density, length of line and all these different things. If we can get a uniform method to start with, that is what we must go for.
As regards the question, in London particularly, of the disparity in charges, all I can do to help the Committee is to point out to them the fact, which some of them have overlooked, that they have a right of appeal to the Minister if they think they are being unfairly treated. The actual prices and methods of charge adopted by authorised undertakers within the limits of their authorised maximum is a matter within the discretion of the undertakers, but if local authorities or the requisite number of consumers are satisfied that the maximum prices in operation in their district are excessive, it is open to them to apply to the Minister to have such maximum prices revised. That is the safety valve, if I may call it so, of the electricity consumer.
As regards road construction, first of all I should like to say a word or two about the Road Fund. That subject has been
raised by a number of hon. Members, the last of whom was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison). We are glad to see him and others so solicitous about our Fund. If those hon. Members had studied the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Budget, they would have seen that we have an undertaking that the fact that this surplus was taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not make any difference to the amount of money which can be profitably spent by the Department on work of major importance. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the difference between commitments and expenditure. Many hon. Members have called attention to the fact that there happened to be a surplus in the Fund. Hon. Members must realise, as indeed they must know, that the cheques we pay are in respect of commitments entered into earlier, and the reason that there was a surplus in the Fund at that moment was because the cheques were being written in respect of the lean years before, when work was cut down. I will give a little example and this will interest the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss). Some years ago Lambeth Bridge was built, and it was opened three years ago. The London County Council have not yet applied to us for the cheque in payment for that bridge, and that money has had to be kept in the Road Fund until application is made. That is only one of a large number of cases where commitments were entered into and the money has not yet been paid.
The hon. Member who opened the Debate asked me a question about local authorities and public works. He asked the Minister whether if certain local authorities entered into and spent money on schemes that did not come to fruition owing to the lean years, they would be eligible for the Road Fund. If they had spent money they would be so eligible and could get the money back. We are hopeful that in the future working of this scheme for a five-year plan, a number of these schemes which were entered into and in regard to which money was spent in getting out plans, and so forth, will be put forward for the coming year. The hon. Member asked me about weak bridges. I can assure him that we offer 75 per cent, for such bridges not in the ownership of highway
authorities, and we definitely hope to get rid of all such bridges within the next five years. As regards toll roads and bridges, the grant is 60 per cent. of the cost for Class 1 roads and 50 per cent. for Class 2 roads, and that grant is available for buying out a toll.
Two hon. Members spoke about canals. I can assure them that we are taking a great interest in canals. Recently the Crinan Canal had a certain amount of money spent on it, and probably will have more. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir Ian Macpherson) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) seemed to think that they would get no grant for unclassified roads. If they have studied the question they will find that in a circular sent out in connection with the five-year plan, we definitely say:
We also intend to increase the allocation for unclassified rural roads for the benefit of the agricultural community.
The right hon. Gentleman read out that statement, but the right hon Member for Ross and Cromarty did not seem to realise it. I want to emphasise that particular point. As regards roads in Scotland, the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness, in a very forceful speech, told us that he imagined he was forcing an open door. I think that that is so. He cannot expect me now to go into detail, but I can assure him that this question of grants to areas such as he represents is one which is constantly before the Ministry, and with regard to which we have had discussions with the Treasury.

Mr. McKEAG: If it applied in the case of roads in that part of the country represented by the right hon. 'and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) -would the possibility of a grant of 100 per cent, also apply, say, to the new road and bridge in Durham City which is scheduled as a distressed Area?

Captain HUDSON: The only way in which I could answer my hon. Friend is to say that every case will be dealt with on its merits. The case of certain roads in Scotland is very different, and we have the matter before us and are considering it sympathetically. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned incidentally the necessity of making smooth gradients and corners of large radius. We only make stipulations about gradients and corners
if in our opinion there is danger involved. Having dealt with a district which is not so densely populated, I now come to the points put by the hon. Member for North Lambeth, who was speaking from the point of view of the London County Council. I gathered from his speech that he was under the impression that no money was given for the acquisition of property. He was like Oliver Twist and like other Members of this House, asking for more. We do not blame him for that. in Circular 420 we definitely state that a grant would be given. The words are:
Net cost in non-built-up areas, or net cost or site value, whichever is the less, in built-up areas.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: In built-up areas it is always site value.

Captain HUDSON: The hon. Member complained that no grant was given for land that was taken over. I want to make clear to the Committee that that is no so. The hon. Member made some complaint about the Department. Now that his speech has been made, I hope that the London County Council and ourselves may be able to get together upon a really good programme for the five-year plan. In the Ministry we have rather the feeling that the London County Council are not putting forward the plan which we should like to see them put forward. The hon. Member said that we are discouraging them; we feel that they are discouraging to us. Perhaps we may be able to get together in the future, I to satisfy him and he to satisfy me.
In the time that remains I wish to say a word about road safety. Two hon. Members raised the question of the efficiency of brakes. The hon. Member for Wrexham asked whether we had considered what he called the Toronto experiment. A paper on that subject was read at the road safety conference and is being studied at this moment in the Department. My right hon. Friend puts very great store upon the efficiency of brakes, but the problem becomes difficult when you look into its details. It is particularly difficult to devise some kind of test which would be the same for everybody. The question is being considered sympathetically, and I am certain that it is a line well worthy of exploration in the Department. Another aspect of road safety referred to concerned insurance.
I can assure the hon. Member who asked a question about it that we are in the closest co-operation with insurance companies, in order to obtain all the information at their disposal for the prevention of road accidents. As regards that very important subject of third-party risks, in which respect certain insurance companies failed to meet their obligations, we have been in touch with the Board of Trade, whose business it is primarily to deal with the question, and I believe that some suggestions will be made by the Board in the very near future. The hon. Member for North Lambeth asked a question about the Committee on Road Safety. All I can say is that it is a committee which works hard and meets frequently. It is a confidential committee to which my right hon. Friend puts questions which he wishes discussed, and they give him their confidential advice. It would not be in the best interests if their reports were made public. It is a working committee, which works confidentially and whose mouthpiece the Minister is. Incidentally, I would say that the committee is representative of nearly every class of road user.
The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), in a most interesting speech, raised the question of inefficient vehicles on the road. My right hon. Friend is in agreement with him. If you could devise a system, which would need to be very carefully worked out, by which all private vehicles on the road were examined for inefficiency, as are public service vehicles and certain goods vehicles, that would undoubtedly make for road safety. All I can say now is that that is a vast subject and one which would require a great deal of thought before the Ministry could come to the House and ask.for legislative approval for a scheme of that kind. One or two hon. Members made complaints against police methods, and one hon. Member in regard to the duties of magistrates. Police methods are a matter primarily for the Home Office,.nd we cannot answer for that Department. The duties of magistrates are not debateable by us. We hope, however, that magistrates will do their utmost to carry out the provisions of the law and the regulations approved by Parliament for safety on the roads. A great many of our proposals depend upon magistrates, who can make or mar their success. We
have no reason to doubt that magistrates understand the truth of what I have just said.
It was a pity, said the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), that the Minister was reserving roads for children and closing them to motor vehicles. The Minister entirely agrees, but he has to be a realist, and he has to deal with the country as he finds it. If there were playgrounds for the children and sufficient means of getting them there, this question would not arise, but there are not sufficient playgrounds, and the Minister is acting in the only way that seems to meet a very difficult situation. I cannot go into the hon. and gallant Member's other point, on which he has kindly come to see me, about the 30-miles-an-hour sign being placed upon the roads. I would remind the Committee that a very strong recommendation was made when this matter was considered by the appropriate committee, that there should not be a number of signs on the road in order that the white lines which are there now, and the "Stop" signs, should have priority, and that everybody should recognise their importance. I think that is all I can deal with now.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member if the Ministry will consider the method of road making in Rhodesia, by strips, because you get a better road than you have here at a. lower cost?

Captain HUDSON: I should have to have notice of the question of making roads as in Rhodesia. The Ministry of Transport have to deal essentially with post-war problems. Unlike other Departments they had no precedents to guide them and no previous experience by which they can profit. Questions of road safety, road construction and reconstruction, electricity development, coordination of road and rail and ribbon development are matters which did not occur in years long gone by, and the methods adopted by the Department must be experimental. If an experiment is to be a success, it must be given a reason--able time to prove its usefulness or otherwise. I would ask the Committee that, while exercising in the freest and fullest. way their right to criticise, they should, in the old phrase, consider themselves to be a Council of State, and they should
help us, as they can both in this House and in their constituency, to devise and carry through the various measures which are rendered necessary to deal with the rapidly changing circumstances of our time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Sir G. Penny.]

7.25 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want a couple of minutes to talk on this subject. if I can get them.

The CHAIRMAN: I have a Motion, which I must put to the Committee.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Debate does not close, I understand, until 7.30.

Mr. THORNE: It can come up again later on.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want to ask the Minister—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Question now before the Committee is that I do report Progress.

Mr. THORNE: Speak on the Motion.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I should like to suggest that we do not report Progress, because the Debate is so interesting that it ought to go on. I want to urge the Minister of Transport to consider that we have not enough roads in this country, and that we have far too many vehicles for the roads. In 10 years' time the whole place will be soaked to saturation with vehicles. The thing to do is to get money and make more and more roads. I have already supplied him with figures and ideas for the making of roads at one-tenth of the cost. In Southern Rhodesia they make far better roads. Cars run on little rails, and the rest of the road is free for other transport, instead of devoting the Whole of the road to motors. You can get 10 miles of road for the cost of one mile here. The whole of the particulars are in this month's "Road Transport." I supplied them. I got the particulars from the Government of Southern Rhodesia. By those methods we can get the whole of Britain covered with roads at one-tenth of the present cost.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must not, make, on this
Motion, the speech that he intended to make when the Estimates were before the Committee. The Question now is that I do Report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The hon. Member must do his best to address his argument to that Motion.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think that the speech I made was the best argument against it. Someone asked me the other day, "What are platitudes" and I said, "The foundation of all speeches." I thought I would contribute my quota.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.30 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It has been suggested to me that it would facilitate the Debate if I expressed the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the issue as it will be raised when the Instruction on the Paper is moved, and, if that procedure will be in order, and if it will be for the convenience of the House, I will willingly follow it. I can assure the House that what I have to say can be compressed within a very small compass. The issue before the House will be whether the London County Council should be granted borrowing powers for the purpose of building a new Waterloo Bridge to replace the bridge which they are now demolishing. In circumstances which it is hardly necessary for me to recapitulate, the London County Council have seen fit to proceed in this matter on lines previously rejected by the House of Commons.
My predecessors, stating the attitude of the Government before the bridge was pulled down, made the question of a grant dependent upon Parliament's decision. Parliament has twice withheld its approval from the proposal to destroy the old Waterloo Bridge and build a new one, and has therefore in effect twice decided against any grant being made
for such a purpose. Whatever decision, therefore, the House may wish to reach on the question of the financial method of meeting the cost which has been incurred, and particularly on the proposal to allow the County Council now to borrow—on which point the Government have no desire to stand in the Council's way—there can no longer be any question of a grant from national funds in aid of the expenditure which the Council have decided to incur of their own motion and contrary to the wishes of Parliament. The question will, therefore, be entirely for the House of Commons to decide, and it may assist the Debate if the issue is expressed on this occasion as being one of whether or not borrowing powers should be granted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

7.34 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out paragraph (c) of item 9 of Part I of the Schedule.
I am much obliged to the Minister of Transport for the statement which he has just made. If hon. Members will turn to the Schedule to the Bill, they will find, on page 6, under Item 9, paragraph (c), that the London County Council once again ask Parliament to give them power to raise by loan, during the year ending on the 31st March, 1936, a sum of £140,260, and during the half-year ending on the 30th September, 1936, a further sum of £140,000, or a total sum during the two periods mentioned of 2280,260. The purpose of this loan is stated to be to obtain cash by borrowing, instead of, as was originally suggested, by a direct charge on current rates, towards payment of part of the cost of the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge. No figure is given for the total expenditure involved, but in the statement which has been circulated this morning the estimated figure is given as approximately £1,295,000; but I need not remind the House that, were Parliament to approve of the borrowing of the smaller sums to which I first referred, they would be morally bound to approve of loans for the larger sum or anything in excess of that sum which was
ultimately found to be required for pulling down the old bridge and erecting a new one.
I remember that, when I moved a similar Instruction in the case of the London County Council (Money) Bill almost exactly a year ago, in May, 1934, I felt that some apology was due to Parliament and to this House that Parliament should have again been troubled with the discussion of a matter which they had considered so fully and dealt with so decisively only two years before, namely, in June, 1932. Now, with only the interval of a single year after Parliament has on two occasions, equally decisively, refused to give borrowing powers to the London County Council for the pulling down of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge, we have once more before us the same request from that body. The only difference this time is that, notwithstanding the twice expressed opinion of this House that Waterloo Bridge should not be pulled down, but that it should be widened and reconditioned, the London County Council, a few weeks after the decision of Parliament, commenced pulling down the bridge and a great part of the bridge has already been pulled down and removed. It will be remembered that, as soon as the decision of Parliament was announced, the Leader of the London County Council made a statement to the effect that he did not regard the decision of Parliament as a matter of importance, and that he intended to take immediate steps to pull down the bridge and to pay for the expense incurred out of the rates. That this flouting of Parliament was deliberate on the part of the London County Council is, I think, clear if the House remembers a statement made on the matter in the course of the last Debate in a speech by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), who, after pointing out that the question of pulling down Waterloo Bridge was in no sense a party matter—which is absolutely true—went on as follows:
I feel that the House to-night is pursuing something of a dream. It does not matter what this House decides to-night. Whatever point of view the House takes, the decision of those responsible for London administration has been made. For 10 years we—
that is, the Municipal Reform party—
have been reproached for our vacillating policy and all the rest of it, and have been urged by the leaders of the present London
County Council to have the courage to put the cost on the London rates and to defy the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: 'No!'] Yes. I have quotations here. The present leader of the London County Council went so far in 1932 as to say that if he were in my position as leader of the Council he would vindicate the right of self-government in London and he would pay out of the rates for five years. So I say, with all respect, that the policy of the London County Council is already determined."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1934; col. 289, Vol. 290.]
Parliament having, as I have said, refused in 1934 to give power to the London County Council to borrow money to pull down the bridge, the Council at once proceeded to sign a contract for its immediate demolition. The leader of the Council stated that the expenditure involved, in accordance with the statement made by the hon. Member for Richmond which I have just read to the House, would be provided out of current rates. The House will also remember that, in order to emphasise the London County Council's disregard of the decision arrived at by Parliament, the leader of the Council a few weeks afterwards, as soon as the contract for the demolition of the bridge had been signed, summoned a large number of photographers and cinematograph operators to attend one morning on Waterloo Bridge, and there he posed, cap on head and pick in hand, with workmen from the contracting firm, showing the first stone of the old bridge being removed from its place. I may also remind the House that an unfortunate slip happened with regard to the taking of this film, and the posing had to be gone through a second time in order that full and authentic films might be preserved for the public of this historic incident.
I hope that from what I have said the House will realise that there is no difference whatever between the application made to Parliament to-night and its two predecessors, all three being requests to Parliament to allow the London County Council to borrow money to pull down and rebuild Waterloo Bridge. It is true that on the two previous occasions the Minister of Transport indicated that, if Parliament was prepared to give borrowing powers to the London County Council the Ministry would make from the Road Fund a grant of 60 per cent. of the cost, while to-night we have just heard from the Minister of Transport that in no circumstances wilt the Govern-
ment make a. grant towards the cost of the bridge, though, in accordance with the usual practice in the case of a Private Bill, it is left to the decision of the House whether the House will adhere to its previous decision not to grant borrowing powers to the London County Council, or will reverse its previous decision and grant such powers. The words of the Minister, as I took them down, were that the reason why the Government have decided in no circumstances to make a grant was that the County Council of their own motion had decided to pull down the bridge, contrary to the opinion expressed by Parliament on two separate occasions.

Mr. THORNE: The Minister can only bind this Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: There can, as I have said, be no doubt that the original intention of the London County Council, when Parliament had for the second time refused them borrowing powers, was to rebuild the bridge out of the rates, and it was only recently, when it was found that the rates of London were rising with alarming rapidity, that the leaders of the London County Council thought it desirable, notwithstanding the previous decisions of Parliament, to come to Parliament again and say, "Let bygones be bygones. Allow us to borrow this money, so that no further burdens may be put upon the rates." Such is a very brief resume of the facts of the case and of what has occurred since this matter was before the House a. year ago. What the House—and I would point out that it is the same House which decided this matter on the last two occasions—has to decide to-night is whether or not it will stand by its two previous decisions, or whether it will reverse those decisions and grant to the London County Council powers which it refused to them before when they asked leave to pull down the bridge. Now that they are in process of pulling down the bridge, is Parliament going to do what it previously refused to do because part of what it refused to allow has actually been done '1 This is a statement of the facts of the case in the simplest and, I hope, least provocative form.
It is sometimes said that, when a great municipal authority—and no one has a higher admiration for the London County Council or for the great work it has done in London than I have—comes to Parlia-
ment and asks, with regard to matters, the carrying out of which is its general function, to be allowed to borrow money Parliament should not go into detail in the matter but should accede to their request. That is no doubt a point of view which can and may be discussed, but it cannot be discussed to-night, because Parliament, rightly or wrongly, in the past has decided that because of the magnitude of the work of the London County Council and of its vast powers it should not be allowed to borrow money, unless the purposes for which its loans are intended have first been approved by Parliament. Parliament, having this duty laid upon it, must, I submit, discharge it fearlessly and honestly. When this same House of Commons has twice decided on the same facts that money should not be borrowed for a particular purpose, I cannot see how, with any self respect, they can now disregard their previous decisions simply because the London County Council have actually done that which Parliament after full discussion on two occasions decided should not be done. Were Parliament to take a course so weak and so pusillanimous, and so fatal to its dignity and repute, I think that it could never again refuse leave to the London County Council were they to ask for powers to borrow money, no matter for what purpose, or whether such purpose was something which Parliament considered was undesirable.

7.47 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
I am very glad that the general Debate has taken this direction because it narrows down the issue to the fundamentals. It is no longer a question about Waterloo Bridge itself. My hon. Friend who has moved the Motion and I were on opposite sides in 1932 and 1934. It is no longer a question of aesthetics; it is a question of ethics, and in my submission the London County Council are asking this House to do something which they should not do. The Minister has given us a short cut by saying that the Government will not give a grant out of the Road Fund.

Mr. TH0RNE: This Government.

Commander MARSDEN: It is the same Government which refused it in 1932 and 1934. But I wonder how this is going to affect the attitude of the London County Council which was very clearly stated on Saturday by the leader of the majority party in the London County Council. According to the "Times" newspaper, which is always correct, he said:
If the Council succeeded with the Bill it would follow that the Minister of Transport would make a grant towards the bridge.
I take it from the utterance of the Minister that, whether the Bill goes through or not, whether the Instruction fails or succeeds, they will get no such grant. I understand that to be the case.

Captain A. HUDSON indicated assent.

Commander MARSDEN: What is the London County Council going to do about it now? I will quote from the Memorandum which hon. Members received this morning. They say:
The question of rebuilding Waterloo Bridge has subsequently been considered by Parliament in connection with the Council's Annual Money Bill in 1932 and again in 1934 but the proposal to incur capital expenditure on the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the construction of a new bridge in its place was not endorsed on either of those occasions.
We have already heard that, but they go on to say:
The effect of Parliament's action in 1934 was that the Council had no authority to defray the cost of a new bridge out of borrowed money.
In spite of their own declaration, they started pulling down the bridge some time ago, obviously with the intention of erecting a new bridge, and, after committing themselves to the work, they come to the House and ask to be allowed to borrow the money. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend that they have suddenly come because the rates are going up, and if the rates are going up they will not be so popular. But this did not deter them in the first instance in the slightest. They go on to say:
Owing to the Council's system of finance, by which large sums of expenditure on capital works are met each year out of rate account without borrowing, the Council were in a position to proceed with the execution of the bridge works.
That is what they did. They say that they have the provision and the means
to raise the money without borrowing, and they work on those lines. Now they come to this House to ask for powers to borrow money for the purpose for which they said they had enough money through the rates. The arguments why we should agree to the loan are pretty obvious. The bridge will be of universal use. I am sure that it will be a beautiful bridge, that it will appeal to all of us and will be used by many of us and our successors for a great many years. The bridge may last 100 years, and as far as I know the details of the loan would be that it would probably be repaid in 60 years. That all sounds very admirable and nice, and up to a point it is. But why is Parliament asked to agree to borrowing the money at all? Is it merely a formality, and the London County Council puts down a request to this House and we put it through? It seems to be absolutely a case where Parliament should say something rather more than that. Parliament's decision has been given. I did not agree with that decision. I voted the other way. It is not a question now of the bridge, but how the bridge should be paid for. The position is obvious.
I would point out another thing which was said by the leader of the London County Council. He said that it was to be remembered that on these private Bills Parliament should be acting in something like a judicial rather than a political capacity. That is perfectly true, and then he rather spoils his own remarks by prejudging what the judges are going to say and finding fault with them if they do not bring in a decision in accordance with his ideas. That is really how they stand. In the ordinary vernacular, which some hon. Members in this House perhaps understand, they are trying to put one over on us; they are trying to get away with it. I see no reason why they should not stand by their own errors and misjudgments. There is no reason at all why next year, when the new bridge is being built, they should not come forward again to borrow money, and I for my part would then feel disposed to agree with them. But on this occasion, Parliament's authority and decisions mean anything, I hope that Members of the House will pass this Instruction.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I am sure that the House will be pleased that the hon. Mem-
ber for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has delivered exactly the kind of speech which the House would expect from him.

Sir JOHN PYBUS: Why not?

Mr. WILMOT: I say that the House is pleased and gratified that its expectations should have been granted. He has told us all the good reasons why the House should interfere with the proper functions of the London County Council. I was more puzzled by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden). Exactly how he regards it as a matter of high ethics that the Council's proper request for borrowing powers should be turned down to-night, but granted next year for exactly the same purpose, I find it very difficult to follow. It is not a matter of ethics, but of finance of very far-reaching consequences. It would be proper if the House would consider the real consequences of the matter which we are here determining. This is the annual Money Bill of the London County Council, and it specifies the purposes for which the Council may borrow money and the extent to which it may borrow money during the current financial period. The London County Council is an enormous body, its powers are wide, it governs more people than many a European sovereign State, and it expends more money than many a national budget. Parliament, in devising the structure of this, the greatest municipal authority in the world, required it to come to Parliament with an annual Money Bill to get sanction for its borrowing powers. The intention of Parliament clearly was that these operations were so large that it was proper that the House of Commons should determine these questions in the light of whether the proposed borrowings were for purposes which properly fall to be charged to capital rather than to rate account. It is to that aspect of the. question that the House ought to be devoting its attention.
The hon. Member for South Kensington has chosen to introduce into this subject, as he chose to introduce into the Debate last year, considerations of a party political character and to regard this matter, not as a proper function for the use of the funds available, limit as a matter by which one political party could score marks over the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It
is very much to be regretted, but he has only himself to blame for it, because he very clearly expressed his own views. The London County Council is accused of flouting Parliament, and it would be well if the House would examine that charge. The London County Council is the sole authority charged with the maintenance and, if necessary, with the reconstruction of the county bridges of London. It has the sole authority because Parliament in its wisdom chose to appoint it the sole authority.

Mr. CAPORN: Without borrowing powers.

Mr. WILMOT: I will come to borrowing powers in a moment. It chose to lay down this great authority. It has very heavy and extensive responsibility for maintaining in proper order and in due safety, and with regard to the traffic requirements of the times, the important links across the river Thames that fall within the county of London, and it is in pursuance of duties specially laid upon it by Parliament that the county council, not out of some devilment or on account of some whim, has to determine what to do with a bridge which has been falling down for the last 12 years. Parliament does not choose to relieve the council of that responsibility. The responsibility still rests with the council, and it is a responsibility in this case for the day-to-day safety of those who pass over and under that bridge. The London County Council are not coming here cap in hand to ask the House of Commons "please on this special occasion sanction borrowing powers for doing this job," they come here in pursuance of their proper function, submitting their annual money Bill as they are bound in law to do in connection with their borrowing powers, including the necessary finance for undertaking a bridge reconstruction in which they were supported by almost every authority with whom they consulted and who had any reason to speak on the matter.
Parliament decided for reasons best known to the Members who chose to vote on that occasion that the borrowing powers for the construction of this bridge should be deleted from the Bill. But this House is not the bridges authority for London. The responsibility for the safety of that bridge has been delegated
by the House to the London County Council, and the House was not asked to decide whether it was a proper thing to treat this dangerous bridge in this way or that. The House was asked to decide whether this was a proper purpose to charge to capital or to rate account. The hon. Member shakes his head, but if he will examine the Statute under which this business operates, I think he will find that I am right. Parliament decided that it would not permit the Council to pay for the construction of a bridge which the Council considered to be necessary; it would not allow them to pay for it out of capital but decided that the whole of it should be thrown on the London rates. When that Motion was put to the vote last year Members from all over the country voted on it, as it was their right to do; but it was interesting to observe that of the 46 London Members of Parliament, who are responsible to their constituents in London for what they do about it, only 18 could be found in any party who would vote against the London County Council's proper request for borrowing powers in respect of this great capital work.
The London County Council the day after that vote was taken was still the bridges authority for London; they had still to bear the responsibility which I submit the hon. Member opposite did not have to bear for the safety of those who used that bridge and navigated the water under it. They were forced in the light of the decision of Parliament to reconsider the whole matter afresh. They considered the traffic, the navigation, the financial and the architectural problems which were involved by the collapse of this old structure. They took fresh advice. They consulted again the best advisers on every aspect, and they were bound to come to a decision at once for the condition of the bridge was such that it would brook no delay in determining what should be done. The London County Council's unquestioned and unquestionable duty was to deal with this problem as the bridges authority in such a manner as after due advice they sincerely believed to be the best solution. That was the duty laid on them, and the decision with regard to borrowing powers did not affect that duty. They decided on what they believed to be the best course, to pull down the old bridge and to put a new bridge in its place. It is unnecessary for me to detain the House with the
long history of the dispute over this bridge; it is enough to say that London County Councils of two opposite political complexions have arrived at exactly the same decision on the merits of the problem.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why do you say that it is a political issue then?

Mr. WILMOT: If the hon. Gentleman is making an attempt to follow my argument, he will see that I am arguing that it was not a political issue inasmuch as two opposing county councils from the political point of view came to the same decision. It is the hon. Member himself who wishes to make it a political dog fight, because, presumably, he sees the approaching election before him. But I venture to suggest that the result of his action may be different from what he anticipates. Two opposite county councils came to the conclusion that the best and the only proper thing to do in all the circumstances was to pull down, the old bridge and to put a new and wider bridge in its place. These discussions have been going on ever since 1923. In 1925 the old council, dominated by Conservatives, determined to demolish the bridge. In 1926 this House authorised the borrowing powers that were asked for by the old council for precisely the same purpose that the new council are now asking borrowing powers.
The only reason why the bridge was not then forthwith demolished was that a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question of cross-river transport and the Council delayed action pending the report of that Commission. The Commission recommended that the demolition of the bridge should not be proceeded with for one reason; it recommended that the old bridge be maintained as a narrow bridge and that a new one be constructed at Charing Cross. But when the County Council, with the assistance of the Government, promoted a Bill, which was referred by the House to a Select Committee, for the purpose of authorising the building of a bridge at Charing Cross, the Select Committee turned it down; and so we were left with nothing done, with the old bridge still falling down and the County Council still left to face the problem with which it was charged. As the House will remember, in 1932 and 1934 this same
question was before the House on this Money Bill.
There is no need to reiterate all the steps and stages in this long-drawn-out controversy, but the fact remains that in its decision to demolish the bridge and build a new bridge this Council, as did the old Council, had the support of the then Minister of Transport, who supported the proposition in the Debate last year and voted in the Lobby in favour of the London County Council. The Council had the distinguished and instructive support of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), who for many years has rendered public service as Chairman of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and who as a result of his long and unique experience in the study of London's traffic problem unhesitatingly supported the proposal that a new and wider bridge should be provided at Waterloo. On the navigation side of the problem, the Council were supported by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden), who has so surprisingly changed his mind and who last year represented certain river users whose lives and property were in danger.

Commander MARSDEN: I am very glad that a new bridge is being built. The whole question before the House to-night is how it is to be paid for.

Mr. WILMOT: The House will be interested to find that while the hon. Member is glad that a new bridge is to be built he desires to penalise the people of London because it is being built, and insists that the rates should go up because there is a Labour council, who should not be treated as any other council would be. Is there anyone who would really on the merits of the question determine that the building of the bridge is not a capital work which ought to be financed out of capital and not out of revenue. The council were supported by Lord Ritchie for the Port of London Authority, by the Master Lightermen's Association, by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Clarke), and by those who were able to speak on behalf of those who actually worked on the boats that pass under the bridge. On the architectural side it was supported by eminent architects and eminent antiquarians, who felt that it was not a practical or artistic thing to attempt to hang parapets out of
?
the side of the old bridge. Finally, there are authorities who supported the council on financial grounds, who felt that is was better to spend £1,200,000 on a new bridge which would last for centuries than to spend half that sum on an attempt to patch up an old bridge which would probably collapse. Members had an opportunity of seeing in the tea room models of the new bridge, not fantastic dreams but models of a bridge which is about to be put in course of construction. The terribly nerve-racking fears of the hon. Member for South Kensington that this new bridge would prove to be some dreadful monstrosity were fortunately proved to be wrong.

Sir W. DAVISON: I never said that the new bridge would prove to be a monstrosity. I said that I had no doubt that Sir Gilbert Scott would build a beautiful bridge, but that it would not be Waterloo Bridge.

Mr. WILM0T: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he will surely agree with me that the new bridge is a very beautiful structure. It combines in a peculiarly appropriate way architectural features which bring it into harmony with the noble proportions of Somerset House on one side and the new squat modern square architecture which is on the other side of the bridge. The keynote of the design is simplicity. By adopting the same device as Rennie, the twin arch, an impression of lightness has been created, while by springing the initial Norman arch right across the roadway and into the river, an entirely new London vista is opened up, a vista of London's curving river which very few Capitals can equal or boast of. From the aesthetic point of view, the council's architects have produced a monument which will be in a noble setting and will be a noble addition to the development of London's river bank.
The House to-night is not asked to decide whether we shall have a new Waterloo Bridge or whether we shall retain the old one. Years ago the House of Commons decided that these problems should be decided by the London County Council, which was appointed the bridges authority for London. The House has to decide to-night whether it will allow the London County Council to do what I, with respect, suggest they would not
question in any other authority; whether it will allow the London County Council borrowing powers for the purpose of building the bridge. I suggest that if it were any other authority or any other bridge that was involved, it would be a different matter. There are several other bridges mentioned. There is no question in the House of preventing the County Council from borrowing money for the purpose of reconstructing Chelsea Bridge or reconstructing Wandsworth Bridge. Surely, if it is financially proper that the Council should have borrowing powers to reconstruct Chelsea Bridge it is financially proper that they should have powers to borrow for the purpose of reconstructing Waterloo Bridge. What difference is there as a financial proposition 4 If the House draws a line it is drawing a line other than a financial one and imparting into a financial decision elements which I suggest with respect should not be imported.
It is very regrettable that the Minister of Transport should have chosen to announce to-night that, no matter what the House of Commons may decide, there can be no grant from the Road Fund for this great capital work. I think that the public of London, in this great capital city, which makes such an enormous contribution to the roads, whose citizens contribute more than any other citizens to the swollen Road Fund, which is raided from time to time to make up Exchequer deficiencies, will be disappointed that the Minister, without waiting for the decision of Parliament, has announced that this particular bridge, which is being built by the London bridges authority, shall be treated differently from any other bridge, notwithstanding the fact that a new bridge is necessary and has been started, and that the Minister's predecessor supported that policy and voted for it—

Captain A. HUDSON: Parliament turned it down.

Mr. WI LMOT: Parliament has not turned it down to-night. The Minister of Transport last year awaited the decision of Parliament. The Minister of Transport to-night has decided to make his decision before Parliament has had an opportunity of making its voice heard. I think it is a most regrettable decision and the implications of it go very far and very wide. But we are not here to
discuss the Minister's action. We are here to discuss the Motion of the hon. Member for South Kensington, and I would appeal to him to realise that so far as the building of the new Waterloo Bridge is concerned London opinion will take it very badly if the House of Commons decide that because it is Waterloo Bridge and because it is the London County Council borrowing powers, which financially ought to be granted, shall in this case be withheld.
Members of this House who are familiar with the past of London and with the troubled and stormy history which has surrounded the rebuilding of all London's old bridges will appreciate what I mean when I say that I think I see sitting beside the hon. Member for South Kensington the shades of all the greyhaired diehards who have preceded him. There has not been one occasion when the rebuilding of the old London bridges has not been met with strenuous opposition. Every kind of opposition was put up against the rebuilding of old London Bridge and against the rebuilding of old Westminster Bridge. Enormous sums of money have been poured out in reconstruction and repairs in an attempt to delay the inevitable decision that the bridge must be pulled down and a new one built. In the end that was the course that was followed, but it was only followed after the hon. Member's ancestors in politics had done their utmost to delay the decision which was ultimately inevitable. In Mr. Harold Clun's remarkable book on London he refers to the fact that it took nearly a century of haggling for the old London Bridge to be condemned as a nuisance, a danger to navigation and a disgrace to the city. Enormous sums were poured out upon it. Sums 'that were entirely wasted were literally poured into the river. Even then, says Mr. Clun, the building of the new bridge could only be carried through in the teeth of the most strenuous opposition, and I see that opposition hovering round the hon. Member for South Kensington to-night. Cannot we in this case realise that the London County Council has made a proper and the best decision, acting with full responsibility in the discharge of the duties laid upon it by Parliament. I cannot believe that the House of Commons will penalise the ratepayers of London and lay upon them a special charge by forcing them to defray out of
the current rates account an item of expenditure which no reasonable person would regard as other than capital expenditure. I hope the House will say that that is not a wise course to pursue but that it will take the decision that the County Council shall go on with its work unhampered by this excursion into party politics and should proceed with the building of a fine structure which in the end will make London a finer and better city.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I am sure that the House has listened with interest to the long disquisition which we have just heard. No doubt we should have been more interested if any substantial portion of the speech had had anything whatever to do with the Motion before the House. The issue before us is short, sharp and clear cut. Is this House to allow the London County Council or any authority to flout the decrees of the House. It is that issue alone with which we are concerned to-night. The hon. Member said that the House has no right to interfere with the proper functioning of the London County Council. With that I entirely agree, and I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that this House would not dream of interfering with the proper functions of the London County Council. But are we interfering with the proper functions of the London County Council? In an admirable speech my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has pointed out that this question was before the House in 1932, when there was a Moderate party on the London County Council and in 1934 when it had changed its political complexion, and that on both occasions the decision of the House was the same. There was an application for a loan, a request for a guarantee and on both occasions the House decided against it.
It is necessary to keep clearly in mind that we are not in the least concerned with the old bridge or the new bridge. We are not concerned with Waterloo Bridge as such. The question is, are we to be dragooned by the London County Council; are they to say that we must give them power to put this bridge item on capital account although we have twice previously decided against it. In what circumstances was the decision
taken by the London County Council. The House rejected this proposal in May last, and its decision was faithfully adhered to by the previous London County Council. Within a few days we had Mr. Morrison openly declaring that they were going to pull the bridge down, indeed, he used a pick-axe to pull out the first stone. He said: "We do not care what Parliament says; we will do it out of the rates." Up to that point I have no objection to the action taken by Mr. Morrison, although it may not have been the most dignified way of doing it. Up to that point the London County Council were quite within their rights to undertake work for which they would themselves pay out of the rates, and would not be dependent on an application to Parliament for something which had twice been denied, the last time only just immediately before the London County Council decided to take this drastic action.
I say with great emphasis that this House cannot allow any local authority in the provinces or the London County Council to flout its decisions so flagrantly as was done by Mr. Morrison's action in coming back to the House this year having said that he would put the cost on the rates. Whatever may be the political colour of the administration I should take exactly the same stand if the dignity and authority of Parliament was challenged in such a manner. I hope, therefore, we shall make certain that the Instruction is carried, so that authorities everywhere will understand that they must respect Parliament. When that proper respect is shown I have no doubt that this House will give proper and due regard to any renewed application. We have not to deal with that to-night, but it is necessary that Parliament should say that it cannot tolerate the flouting of its decisions. The hon. Member for Fulham East (Mr. Wilmot) has said that it was not a question of one political party scoring over another. That was what Mr. Morrision was doing. He was trying to score a political point. In this House while various questions were raised it always came back to the guarantee, asking for authority to borrow the money and not put it on. the rates.

Mr. WILMOT: There is no question at all of guaranteeing a loan.

Mr. BALFOUR: The word I should
have used was "grant." It was Mr. Morrison who introduced politics. If such an issue was raised by any authority or company who is entitled to come to this House I should resist on every occasion these powers, because I attribute far greater importance to maintaining the authority of Parliament than to any other consideration. I hope the House will accept the Instruction, and show the country that it intends to maintain the authority which resides in Parliament.

8.31 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I do not suppose that anybody has fought harder for the preservation of Waterloo Bridge in this House than I have, or when I was a member of the London County Council. I have no regrets that on aesthetic, historic and traffic grounds I desired that the bridge in its original form should be preserved. Nothing that has happened during the last few years has altered my views of that point; but we must realise the position. London as a whole is undoubtedly against those views. On the last London County Council perhaps even more than the present Council, a vast majority of members took an entirely different view and I was always in a small minority. They came to their conclusion on the point of the river interest and traffic that the bridge should be rebuilt. Some of us made a last effort to preserve it last last year. We failed. Perhaps it was rather a high-handed action on the part of the London County Council when they decided that even if the new bridge had to be built out of the rates the bridge should go. The bridge has gone, and there is not the slightest hope of preserving Waterloo Bridge in its original form. There it is, being gradually pulled down stone by stone. We may think that it is somewhat of an act of vandalism, but that is not the issue.
The issue is, shall it be paid out of the rate account or out of capital account? If it was any other authority but the London County Council they would not have to come to the House of Commons. If it was Birmingham or Manchester, or any of the great municipal corporations, they would go to the Ministry of Health, the loan sanctioning authority, and undoubtedly the authority to borrow the money would be given, but owing to historical circumstances,
rightly or wrongly, the London County Council have direct access to the House cif Commons. That is due to the fact that the previous authority, the Metropolitan Water Board, who carried out works like main drainage, had to borrow extensively by means of bonds, and the Treasury in 1869 decided to give London what was then regarded as a privilege—namely, the right to come to the House of Commons for raising loans in order to get money at a cheap rate.
In 1875, by special Act of Parliament, it was arranged that these loan powers should be obtained each year. That explains the annual money Bill of the London County Council, and that is the reason why we can prevent London borrowing money for a capital charge. It is a power that we have not got over Liverpool or any other great cities, and the responsibility is a great one for us to take. If we decide against the Bill to-night it is true that Waterloo Bridge demolition will continue and that the new bridge will be constructed, but at a heavy expense to the London ratepayers. I do not feel justified in putting that heavy burden on the already heavily burdened London ratepayer at a time like this. We are not going to do any harm to the County Council as such if we reject the Bill, but we are going to put a very heavy burden on the London ratepayers. I am going to support the Bill, and in the circumstances I feel sure it is a wise thing to do.

8.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On the last two occasions when this matter was discussed in the House I took the view that Waterloo Bridge should be pulled down, but, as has been said, we are faced tonight with an entirely new situation. We have heard a very able plea from the Labour Benches, but I do not think that the hon. Member who spoke made out his case at all. What are the facts? The Leader of the County Council, as he was entitled to do, said that whatever Parliament decided when the Waterloo Bridge question came up, "I am going to pull down the bridge"; and he proceeded to do so. It is not disputed that he said at the time that he would do it out of the ratepayers' money. The responsibility he is now trying to shift on to Parliament. Hon. Members on the Labour benches do not
realise what the responsibility of Parliament is. Parliament decided that the expenditure involved in pulling down the bridge and rebuilding it should not rest on the people of this country, either by means of loan charges or by means of the Road Fund. Hon. Members talk about the burden on the ratepayers of London, but we have to think of the country as a whole. Moreover, the County Council has begun the work of pulling down the bridge. It is not as if the County Council had waited a year and had then come to us to see if we would reconsider our decision. They are doing the work at their own expense. They may consider it a noble gesture from their own point of view, but they cannot come to Parliament now and ask Parliament to get them out of their difficulty.

Mr. LOGAN: Would the hon. and gallant Member elucidate what he has said. He spoke of putting this burden on the country. I do not understand what he means.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In one of two ways the burden might be put on the country. First of all there is the question of borrowing from the country; and secondly, as hon. Members know very well, there is the implied necessity to find the money from the Road Fund if the Bill is passed, and that obviously is what the County Council have in mind. Suppose that a private company was concerned and had been told by the highest authority in the land that certain work could not be charged to capital account. If private enterprise had done the job and put the cost to capital account, would not hon. Members be the first to come and say "Down with private enterprise which is flouting the House of Commons." Some hon. Members may say that they could pay for it out of their dividend. The Leader of the County Council said that the cost could be paid out of the rates. But the County Council wishes to reverse that statement now. One of our duties here in authorising the borrowing of money is to see that capital expenditure is properly applied. Though I supported in the past the application of the Conservative County Council, and, secondly, that of the Labour County Council for authority to pull down the bridge, I shall now oppose the Bill because the County Council are acting in this way.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. SE L LEY: I understand this question as one who probably has had more first-hand experience of it than any other Member of this House, for I have been a member of the London County Council since this matter first came before it, and as a consistent Tory who never changes, whatever the argument put forward, I have always voted for the destruction of the bridge. If Members of my party, like Wolsey, had served London as well as they had served the party, they would not have been in such difficulties the year before last. There has been far too much political bias brought into the whole of this question. I quite expected, when Mr. Morrison took a pick and removed the keystone of the bridge, that London would go mad. I searched the newspapers very assiduously and I could see nothing but bouquets and congratulations to him for having at last ended a deadlock. Whatever we may say to-night, I would state, taking a long sight, as Tories usually do, that I am very anxious not to have this extra burden to carry when we Conservatives go back to control at County Hall. I fear that some of my hon. Friends forget that Mr. Morrison is not there for all time. This burden may go on for 60 years.
If we are going to saddle London with this burden, let us remember that in about another 18 months we shall have to go to London again. What sort of story will Londoners hear from us then? I, at any rate, can tell them that I have been consistent in this matter on every occasion as I shall be to-night. I was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) who seems to have the idea that because you say a thing two or three times it must be so. He tried to lead the House to believe that the County Council has never had to come back to this House with proposals on a second occasion. I am assured that on many occasions proposals by the Council have been presented to this House and have been rejected or sent back for further information. think there is ample evidence that London at any rate is satisfied with the decision which has been taken and is looking forward to the building of this magnificent Jubilee bridge. I want to share the honours with the present leader of the Council. I do not want to see this money taken out of the rates. I do not want
to impose an undue burden on the London ratepayers. For those reasons and for many others—I could keep the House until a late hour explaining them all but I shall not do so—I am going to support the Bill.

8.47 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: On previous occasions when this matter was before the House I definitely supported the refusal to demolish Waterloo Bridge at all and the House as far as I remember endorsed that view. What happened? The County Council said in effect to Parliament, "Never mind what you say, we shall pull down the bridge." They did so, and, to use a common expression which is very applicable in this case, they now have the cheek to come to us and say, "Will you kindly rectify our position?" I think it is one of the most abominable scandals of which I have ever heard.

8.48 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: When this question of Waterloo Bridge came before the House previously, I voted against the County Council being supplied with funds for the work which it was proposed to carry out at that time. I did so because I thought and still think that the widening of the bridge which is now being taken down would have been ample for all reasonable purposes, especially as practically every Member who spoke on that occasion referred to the construction of a new bridge at Charing Cross. I pointed out that if two new bridges were constructed one at Waterloo and one at Charing Cross both of the dimensions then proposed, the roadways from the bridges would meet at a point not far from the other side of the river and both would be unnecessarily wide. I, therefore, suggested that if there was to be a new Charing Cross. Bridge, which I was anxious to see built in due time, it was only necessary to widen the existing Waterloo Bridge to the extent possible without taking the structure down. At that time certain, hon. Members doubted very much whether the two roadways would really meet at a point so close to the other side of the river but that was the fact which in my view made it imperative to confine the work on Waterloo Bridge to the widening of the existing structure. I, therefore, voted against the proposal that.
the Council should be supplied with funds in connection with a new Waterloo Bridge.
Now the matter is not quite the same. The London County Council whose duty it is to decide what bridges are required, have decided to have a new and wider bridge at Waterloo. Up to the present in this discussion there has been little or no mention of the Charing Cross Bridge proposal. It may be that as a consequence of this great wide bridge at Waterloo, which it appears, will be emple to carry the cross river traffic at this point for a long time to come, the Charing Cross Bridge for practical purposes may be considered as out of view for the present. I had hoped that such a bridge would have been constructed. From many points of view it would have been desirable. But, as the County Council have decided, as they are entitled to decide, to have a new Waterloo Bridge of the dimensions proposed, I feel that it would be a "dog in the manger" sort of policy on my part to resist to-night the granting of money to the Council for this purpose. I do not know that they have made their scheme any more agreeable by the manner in which they have described the proposed work. They have laid great stress on the fact that a very celebrated architect is to be associated with it, as if that were an important matter. In my view, of course, it is not an important matter. The architect is mentioned but there is practically no reference to the engineers whose structure the bridge really will be. Notwithstanding that defect I think it right to vote on this occasion in favour of granting the necessary funds to the County Council.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. HUTCHISON: The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) said this was being made a political issue. Surely it has been made a political issue already by the leader of the London County Council who, in a recent speech at Cardiff said:
What would the ratepayers think of it. It would certainly, and quite rightly, be thought that the ratepayers of London were being victimised by Conservative Members of Parliament because they had dared to elect a Labour London County Council.
London people have elected a Labour County Council. They have got what
they wanted. The Labour County Council has flouted the opinion of Parliament and decided to carry on the destruction of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of the new bridge. Parliament had the question before it twice and decided not to give a grant of money for pulling down the old bridge. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] The County Council came first to Parliament for permission to pull down the bridge. [Hox. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate the question was brought up of Parliament granting money towards this work. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I understand that Parliament has refused on two occasions to consent to this idea. The matter is now before us once more and we find that politics have been brought into the discussion. I, personally, do not want to introduce the political issue, but as it has been brought in we must consider it.
The London County Council have decided to carry out the scheme, and according to their first intentions, the money was to be paid out of the rates, which would have meant an increase in the rates. The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) does not believe in adding to the burdens of the London ratepayers, but if the London ratepayers have consented to the Socialists carrying out this scheme, they must bear the burden. We find that the London County Council have now come forward with the suggestion that this money, £280,260, should be met out of capital and be borrowed, and that Parliament should permit that to be done. This is a typical Socialist attitude. They do something which is going to cost money, and they then expect somebody else to pay for it. That, as I say, is a typical Socialist attitude, and it is one reason why I consider that the House should vote for the Instruction.
Earlier to-day, on the Ministry of Transport Vote, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there was a large sum outstanding on Lambeth Bridge, which the London County Council had not demanded from the Ministry, and the fact that this amount had not been demanded was one of the reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to raid the Road Fund. I suggest that if the London County Council are short of money because of the Waterloo Bridge proposal, they should go straight
to the Ministry of Transport and demand the money for Lambeth Bridge. That is, however, beside the point, which is whether the London County Council should be allowed to flout Parliament. I am sure that it should not be allowed to do so, and I earnestly hope that as many Members as possible will vote for the Instruction.

8.58 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: I support the London County Council in this matter. Some hon. Members have spoken about flouting Parliament, because the Council have come up against the last decision of Parliament on this question, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is prepared to give it them next year.

Sir W. DAVISON: I never said anything about next year or giving them anything. If Parliament comes to the same decision to-night as it did on the last two occasions, and the Council comes along next year again, I hope the House will pass a similar Instruction then.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Next year will be different from this year. There will be an election, in all probability, before then, and although I do not predict that our friends will get a majority, I do predict that they will get 200 Members in this House, and if they had 200 Members here to-night, there would not be this trouble that there is about the flouting of Parliament. Parliament has changed its opinion time and again. The hon. Member for South Kensington says that because Parliament has once come to a particular decision for all time, that decision should hold. Another hon. Member said he supported the London County Council when it was doing its particular business. Is the building of this bridge county council business or is it not? Of course it is. The man who has caused all the trouble all these years is the hon. Member for South Kensington. Last time we had three and a half hours to discuss it, and he occupied a third of the time.

Sir W. DAVISON: I did not occupy much time to-night.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Thank God for that. Our leader on the county council was "cabined, cribbed, confined" all the time and could not do what he ought
to have done and because of that the present position has come about. Mr. Morrison took his courage in both hands. He has done the work and given a good bridge. We have heard a lot about capital expenditure. Is this or is it not capital expenditure, and is it to be paid out of loan or out of rates? I hope we get a good number next time. I have to apologise for saying so, but the hon. Member for South Kensington cannot help himself, and when he speaks of Waterloo Bridge he goes off the deep end every time. I hope we shall vote for this expenditure being met out of loan. I speak as a London ratepayer and as one who is satisfied with what is being done in this matter by the London County Council.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: The issue before the House, as I see it, is whether or not a loan shall be allowed by Parliament to defray the cost of this bridge. We have to consider what has already been said and done with regard to the bridge. It was admitted that Waterloo Bridge required reconditioning and widening to carry the increasing traffic over it. There were many estimates given with regard to reconditioning the bridge and with regard to corbelling it out, enabling it to be widened satisfactorily and substantially in order to carry the traffic that required to be carried. This matter has been before Parliament on two occasions, and in the interests of the London ratepayers it was decided that the new bridge should not be built, but that the old bridge should be reconditioned and widened, and I think I am right in saying that if that had been carried out, it would have been satisfactory. The cost of that, I understand, would have been about £750,000, but with the usual lavishness and extravagance of the Socialist party, when they got into power on the London County Council they decided to ignore what Parliament had decided on two occasions and to flout its authority. Whether we liked it or not, the leader decided that this bridge should be pulled down, and, despite the £1,290,000 which it would cost, that that sum should be expended on this new bridge
It will be a sorry day when we allow a Socialist majority to flout Parliament on two occasions and when we permit the borrowing of money to defray this
expenditure, which is not necessary. A bridge such as Waterloo Bridge is essential, but it does not necessarily follow that when a bridge can be re-conditioned for £750,000 the council should be permitted by the House to borrow £1,290,000. It is not necessary and, therefore, it is extravagant. As a business man I have always held that money should only be expended if it is essential. I have never believed that one should throw away an old coat if it can be repaired satisfactorily. I do not say that that is a good analogy, but the ratepayers of London elected the Socialists into power, and if the Socialists are extravagant and the rates increase, it is their funeral. I hope that it will be a lesson which they will learn. I am going to vote against the County Council on principle, for I am not going to be a party to allowing a Socialist majority to flout Parliament after a decision has been reached on two occasions. I hope that the House wilt not allow the vote to-night to be a victory for Mr. Morrison and the Socialist party so that they will be in a position to say subsequently, "If we do as we want to do, Parliament will ultimately come to heel, whatever its decision in the past may have been." I hope that hon. Members will stand up for the rights of Parliament and will not allow it to be flouted.

9.9 p.m.

Dr. SALTER: I rise to say only one thing. Whatever reasons may be put forward for supporting the Instruction, submit that the real motive behind the opposition to this particular Clause is pure political spite and nothing else. On the last occasion when this matter was before the House, I heard a Member on the opposite side say, a few minutes before the Division, that he came up specially from the country in order that he might, as he said, have a smack at the Socialists on the London County Council. To-night I have heard two Members of the Government party describe the activity of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) as that of rallying all the people he can to strike a downright blow at the Labour party on the London County Council. That is the sole motive animating the oving of this Instruction. If I approached the matter purely from a party tactical point of view, I should hope that
the Instruction would be carried, because it would certainly place a valuable weapon in the hands of the Labour party in the county of London. It would enable us to point out to the ordinary ratepayer that his interests are not counted in the slightest by the supporters of the Instruction, and that they do not care in the least whether any additional burden is placed on him, but that they only wanted to secure a party victory. I hope from the party point of view that the Instructions will be carried, but I hope, from the point of view of London government and decent conduct in party life, that the House will reject it.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I will endeavour to do all in my power to follow the temperate speeches that have been made, and not the provocative speech which we have just heard. The hon, Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell), whom we rarely hear, made a delightful speech that gave pleasure to the whole House. I have, however, never heard a speech which has been so wholeheartedly and universally cheered by Members of the Socialist party. I noticed the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) watching the hon. Member, and, if I am not mistaken, the thought that was passing through his mind was, "Cannot I borrow this orator" 4 I hope that I shall often have the privilege of hearing the hon. Gentleman—nearly as often as he hears me. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) gave us a long speech in which he went into the details of capital and income and introduced a good deal of confusion. I could not imagine why it was, until I remembered that Socialists have nothing to do with companies or accounting or anything of that kind. There is a fundamental difference between capital and income, and between paying for things to-day out of the income of the rates and paying by means of borrowing. By paying out of rates the expenditure is over and done with, but by paying out of borrowing a much higher price has to be paid.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) made an attempt to show that the position of London with regard to borrowing was different from the position of other places. That is true, but he went adrift by trying to make out that the London
County Council was in a worse position than other local authorities. It is not. London with all its power and greatness, and, until it fell from wisdom a year or so ago, with all its straightness and soundness of administration, was in a position superior to that of other local authorities. Whereas other local authorities have to get the assent of a Minister in order to borrow, the London County Council is not under the power of any Minister, but under the power of the House of Commons itself. The question is whether we, as a House of Commons, are justified in passing this particular Instruction. We have been reminded that the House has already expressed its opinion about this matter and declared that it did not wish the old bridge destroyed. I am not going to discuss the picture which was presented to us earlier of some "blackleg" pretending to use a pick for a few minutes and doing a labouring man out of a day's work for the benefit of the cinema. The trade union concerned, or the cinema industry, can deal with that point. When they decided to build the bridge the County Council said they could pay for it out of the rates, but now, a comparatively short time afterwards, they come to the House with the request to be allowed to borrow the money. I do not know whether they hope to be able, by borrowing, to shove the cost on to some other fund, or whether they want to borrow to save themselves from squandering so quickly the vast surplus which they inherited. I see that the Leader of the Opposition laughs at the word "squandering." Naturally he laughs at it, because his whole life has been spent in trying to put the largest possible burdens on the ratepayers. That is his belief—and I admire him for sticking to it—but ours is different.
The question is whether the House of Commons would be justified in withholding its leave to the County Council to borrow money on one exceptional occasion, such as has not arisen for many years past. It is a very narrow issue which we have to decide. In weighing up the matter we have to remember, on the one side, that the County Council have deliberately destroyed a work which the House of Commons has said that it did not wish to be destroyed. Now the County Council
are trying to get Parliament to go back on the decision which it has already taken, and for no reasons given. The hon. Member for East Fulham nearly turned catherine wheels in explaining what he thought was capital and what he thought was income. I am sure no Socialist Member will be able to give any reason, and no reason has been given in the Press, but a vast expenditure has been incurred in sending us a pile of literature, with a picture of what, in the opinion of those who know really good bridges, is a very ugly bridge. The County Council want us to reverse our previous decision and to grant them the power to raise money after they had said they could raise it out of the rates, and after they had made it perfectly plain that they would go on with the work whatever the House of Commons wished.
I do not for one moment think that it is the duty of the House of Commons to try to deflect the local authorities from what they think is right. It is no use giving local authorities the power to do things if we interfere with them, but there are occasions when the House of Commons may feel deeply on some subject, and if the House of Commons should make up its mind about a matter it must be realised by the local authorities that the House of Commons has the deciding voice. Under our Constitution Parliament is the supreme authority. Parliament delegates authority to this, that and the other bodies and leaves them free to act, but if there is any dispute then Parliament decides. It is very rarely, however, that Parliament interferes. In other countries, as in America, there are hopeless troubles because minor authorities think it is within their power to dispute the authority of the major assembly. It should be said to-night, as on all occasions, that when there is any question in dispute there is only one authority in this country, the House of Commons.
Because I feel that in this matter there has been a deliberate effort to get round the decision of the House of Commons I shall certainly vote for the Instruction, and would ask anyone who cares for the constitutional and the democratic position of the House of Commons to do the same. I say this in no spirit of hostility to the London County Council, because to bring that spirit into the House would be unworthy
of the members of any party. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) says that I know it is true, but I would not dream of accusing him or his colleagues of bringing in,that spirit. The action I am taking I am taking from a constitutional standpoint, and with no wish to hurt the feelings of the County Council, but I am sure that it is the right position for the House of Commons to take up.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. G. HARVEY: I should like to make a short explanation, because the attitude I am taking up has been slightly changed during the week-end. When this matter first came before the House in 1932 I was a strong supporter of the London County Council, and was one of those who were energetic in whipping into the Division Lobby those Members who had any doubt as to how to vote. When the colour of the Council was changed I still supported the Council, because in spite of what the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) said just now, I felt that if a thing was right when the Municipal Reform party were in power it must also be right when their successors are in office. I am going to be very blunt and to say quite distinctly that I shall go into the Lobby to-night against the Instruction. I know that Mr. Morrison said that he was prepared to build the bridge out of the rates. A penny rate in London produces approximately £250,000. If the cost of the bridge were put on to the rates it would mean a penny rate for five years. If the money is borrowed it will cost the London rates approximately one-seventh of a penny a year for something like 60 years. The position seems to have resolved itself into a question of what is capital and what is revenue, and with all due respect I feel that the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) showed that he knew more about capital and revenue than did the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).
The question whether this is 'a capital expenditure or not is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff. This bridge will last for approximately 100 years. If a loan is obtained, as I think it ought to be. it will simply mean that we are spreading the cost over a considerable portion of that 100 years. As we are dealing with those that come after us, I think it is only
reasonable and fair that they should pay some portion of the cost we are now incurring. It would not be a very serious matter if the bridge were built out of the rates. I took particular notice of the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), and I thought he had got hold of the subject extremely well. I do not want to take what is commonly called the Socialistic view of this matter, but rather the horse-sense and business view of it. This thing has gone on long enough. We all know that the bridge was tumbling down, that the fifth pier had gone and that another was going, and it was ridiculous to talk about reconstructing bridge when its usefulness had passed. I say deliberately that in re building the bridge the present London County Council are but following the line of policy adopted by their predecessors, and I object strongly to political bias being brought into the subject to-night. I feel that this is a question which is outside of politics and which should be free from political bias of any description. As a plain business man who has not been altogether unsuccessful in business life, I have no hesitation in asking 'anybody who is in any doubt to-night to vote against the Instruction.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I rise to make only one point, which I consider is important to the Debate. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), in the closing sentences of his speech, referred to the attitude taken up by the Minister in stating the position so far as the Ministry was concerned. He used these words: "It is a scandal that the Minister should state before this Debate that whatever the result of the Division to-night no grant would be made from the Road Fund." He continued on these lines: "On the last occasion the Minister allowed the whole Debate to conclude before making his statement or even submitting what was the attitude of the Ministry of Transport towards the application." And the hon. Member said that the same thing applied in 1932. I have since looked up the records, and I find that on 28th June of last year a question was put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in these terms:
To ask the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the London County Council have now decided to abolish
Waterloo Bridge, he will consider making a grant from the Road Fund towards the construction of the new bridge?
And the Parliamentary Secretary replied:
No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1934; col. 1303, Vol. 291.]
Again on 2nd July of last year the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) put the following question to the Prime Minister:
Whether he is now in a position to inform the Housse of the decision of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the London County Council are legally entitled to disregard the twice-expressed opinion of Parliament that Waterloo Bridge should not be pulled down?
The Lord President of the Council, replying, said:
It is a long-established rule that the opinions of the Law Officers are confidential and must not he disclosed, but I would point out in any case that a decision in the matter can only be pronounced by a court of law.
The hon. Member for South Kensington then put this supplementary question:
In view of the fact that Parliament has on two occasions come to a decision in this matter, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Act under which the London County Council are acting as a highway authority deals only with the reparation of bridges and the widening of bridges, and that it is only when a bridge is wholly incapable of repair that they are entitled to pull it down? Js he aware that they are estopped from alleging that in view of the fact that they proposed this year to recondition it?
The Lord President of the Council replied:
With regard to the first point, what the House did, as I understand it, was to say that unless a certain course was pursued no grant would be allowed on the Vote for the Money Bill. With regard to the latter part, perhaps it may simplify matters at this point if I say that the Government have no intention of proceeding any further in the, matter.
The hon. Member for East Fulham will perhaps remember this occasion. If he does not remember, I may remind him that he himself put another supplementary question and asked the Lord President of the Council:
Whether the right hon. Gentleman did not agree that the London County Council were entirely competent as the bridges authority in their own area? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1934; cols. 1556 and 1557, Vol. 291.]
Why do I raise this issue? I do it because the London County Council,
following Parliamentary procedure as it does, knew as long ago as 2nd June last —and it repeated in this House in the following month—that no grant could possibly be made through the Money Bill this year, either for the purpose of assisting the demolition or for the purpose of constructing a new bridge.

Mr. WI LMOT: Since the hon. Member has so consistently misquoted what I said, may I say that no question of grant arises on the Money Bill at all or can arise?

Mr. PIKE: I would not have raised this matter if the hon. Member himself had not complained that the attitude of the Minister prior to this Debate was that no matter what the decision of the House might be to-night no money would be forthcoming from Parliament for the purpose required by the London County Council. I want to say that the London County Council knew a year ago to-day that no money would be forthcoming. Yet they have inserted it in the Money Bill. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No!"] They have at least inserted words which have given rise to the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for South Kensington. I submit that in doing so they have nothing else in mind than the hope that it would pass unnoticed, that Parliament would be caught napping on a quiet day, and that what Parliament refused two years ago, and again a year ago, would be forthcoming on this occasion.
As a provincial Member I take a deep interest in these matters, because I can foresee that if this Instruction is turned down great danger may perhaps arise to Parliament in the future. What would be the thanks of the County Council to-night if this Instruction were turned down? I do not want to transgress the rules of order, but I remember receiving only a few weeks ago a letter signed by the hon. Member for the Rothwell Division (Mr. Lunn) and written to one of his constituents in respect to the withdrawal of the Unemployment Assistance Regulations. It stated: "If we as a small party can force the Government to withdraw these Regulations, what will we do when we are in power? "What precedents would be created to-night if this Instruction were turned down. It would, in my humble opinion, give rise to very grave precedents, affecting not only London in the future but affecting the
whole of the provinces. As representing one division of a provincial city, I am going to do my best to see that the Instruction is not only carried but carried by a large majority.

9.35 p.m.

Miss GRAVES: I intervene in this Debate because I was a ratepayer long before I was a, Member of Parliament. I have learned to-night some extremely interesting facts from both opinions of the subject before the House. The case has been put very strongly, and with more moderation than I should have expected, for Parliamentary responsibility, and from the other side the case has been put which points to another responsibility of Parliament, that ultimate responsibility towards the ratepayers. That is where I start; it is the ratepayers who will have to foot the bill. Whatever may have been the opinions of this House on the subject of pulling down Waterloo Bridge because of its aesthetic qualities, there can be no question that the bridge is pulled down to all intents and purposes, and the County Council must either leave the bridge as it stands, which is not within practical politics, or they must get money from somewhere to finish the job which they have undertaken.
As a ratepayer I have learned to-night that there are two courses open. One is that there should be a capital charge, and that as a ratepayer I should pay one-seventh of a penny for 60 years, and that the capital charge should consist of a loan, the service of which should amount to that money. The other course means that I am faced, as a ratepayer, with the fact that I must pay out of my rates, as the building of the bridge goes on, a sum, I am told, of £1,295,000 in all, representing an addition of one penny on the rates for, I think, five years. There can be no doubt which is the businesslike course to pursue—I speak as a ratepayer—as to which is the course to be followed by a person of limited income, and which my fellow-ratepayers would prefer. I am, as a ratepayer, concerned about the opinion of my fellows, because I share their point of view.
For that reason, and with all possible respect to this Assembly, I suggest that the first thing that will occur to the ratepayer is getting his bridge and paying as little for it as he possibly can.
He will think no worse of Parliament because Parliament was big enough to change its mind. Perhaps the greatest source of vitality in our Parliamentary system is its acceptance of an outside point of view and the consequent change of attitude. The ratepayers will admire and respect an Assembly which knows how to change its mind. In the Debate on the original question of demolishing the bridge, the victory was won by a margin of some 35 votes. In the nature of things that is not a majority which this House need fear to change. I hope very much that we shall vote against the Instruction, which, however much it may have intended to uphold Parliamentary prestige, must, in the long run, lower it in the eyes of the ordinary person.

9.40 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: This is not an occasion on which we can sharpen our battle axes for the next election. The leader of the dominant party of the London County Council has been a little tart in his references to those of us who are Conservative-minded and who, he conceives, might oppose his project, but I do not think that the rather toughened politicians who find access to this House through the portals of a general election should be disturbed in their judgment by the reports of tart speeches, to which we must now have become quite accustomed from the leader of the ruling party.
We have to come to a, decision to-night for the good of London. Those who loved the old bridge served their love faithfully for many years in its decay. They maintained their love while, by various plastic arts, they kept the corpse in a monumental existence for their artistic worship, long after it had ceased to be a fit subject for loving adoration. In the end this object of artistic love could no longer be kept above ground. In the shires of England there are many admirers of old etchings and of ancient bridges, nevertheless, I would assure them that the whole of London breathed a sigh of relief when the new County Council said, "It is time that this very aged, much loved but decayed lady were interred." Therefore, none of the ancient feelings attached to the contests and battles of love and chivalry about the old bridge should move us now.
London is most anxious to lessen its traffic congestion, to lessen the accidents in its streets that follow from that congestion and to get about its business in an expeditious and decent way. There is an eyesore on the Thames that is a constant irritant to its nerves, and an obstruction to its proper passage on its right business, and the London County Council, without distinction of party, wish to get on with the job of bridging the Thames where, at the moment, there is no adequate bridge. Parliament in the past refused to make a grant, but the proposition before us to-night is to enable the, millions of people who make up London to borrow on their own credit to do a public work by which they will profit, and for which they will have to pay. It is futile to call this a Socialist measure. Here is a Socialist County Council—sometimes referred to as a Labour County Council, according to the tenderness of the conscience of the speaker—manipulating the capitalistic money market in a most skilful and modern fashion. They are making the best use of the world as it is, and are using neither the bridge nor the method of financing it as a means of coercing me or my friends into becoming Socialist or Labour voters, and unable to live as Conservatives. That is to say, they are accepting their responsibility towards London as a whole, and with the best engineering and financial advice they can get, they have set out to do something which is pleasing to London as a whole.
In the past, in this country and in Europe, there have been bitter feuds between great cities and central governments, and it has not always been great cities that have come off worst. We have in recollection the ancient liberties of the City of London, which have been maintained from the earliest days against Parliament and against the Kings of England, and I can conceive that, if this House be persuaded by Members not immediately interested in London, but much moved by their antique loves, to irritate London, it will make London more and more conscious of its unity. It will bring into London that same solid spirit which animates the central city, and we shall then be hearing, as the years pass, of the privileges of London and the rights of London, and the 8,000,000 who live and work under the control and with the help
of the London County Council will become more and more conscious of their entity. Most persuasively we do not wish that to happen. Conscious entities are conscious sources of conflict, and I hope that this House in its wisdom will, as a wise physician, concede a little to the invalid in order that he may regain his strength. There is no purpose in irritating great cities if no great end is to be attained. If this Instruction is carried, it will not add one Conservative to the Conservative voting strength; it will not make one Conservative into a safe Socialist. It will simply act as a kind of safety-valve for those worshippers of antique bridges of the long past to say that they have struck a great blow tonight for ancient history, ancient bridges and decayed granite.
Let us be practical to-night. Let us be as persuasive as we can—we London Members—towards those from distant parts of England, and say to them, now that the old bridge has gone and London as a whole is anxious to see the sore removed and the river bridged, and London has uttered no public word of disapproval of the action of the Council, let this House look with approval on the needs and deeds of this great City, and not inflict on it the small hurt and the irritating jar of an Instruction which may have been conceived with the greatest of love, but the alternative to which might be adopted without disloyalty to the past.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: The hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) spoke of there being no purpose in irritating a great city. I should say that equally, and, in fact, more, there is no purpose in irritating Parliament, and that is exactly what the Socialist Leader of the London County Council has succeeded in doing, and will succeed still more in doing should this Instruction not be passed. I should like to say how grateful I am, representing a constituency outside the London County Council area, to the Minister for refusing to allow some of our money to be used for a purely London purpose. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It would be money from the Road Fund, but if this Instruction is passed it will be money raised from the London rates that will pay for a purely London affair. If it were to come from a grant from the Road Fund, it would, as
hon. Members will understand, include money contributed from other parts of the country to be used for a purely London matter.
There has been some talk this evening of party politics being brought in. I would point out that there was no talk of that whatever until the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) put up this dummy only to knock it down. If we are going to bring any party politics in, let us have some, and let us tell the hon. Member for East Fulham that it is a purely political manoeuvre on the part of Mr. Morrison to come here and ask for this loan. If not, why did the London County Council, very shortly after the proposal had been turned down by this House, commence, with a Socialist majority, to pull down the bridge? Surely it is obvious that it was only in order to "get one back" on their political opponents in this House. Further, does the hon. Member, whom I do not see in his place at the moment, really suppose that, if there had been a Socialist majority in this House, the London County Council would have deliberately gone against the decision of a Socialist majority in the House of Commons? He must indeed think us very simple if he thinks we believe that that is so.
One of the real objections on this matter is the hopelessly inefficient manner in which it is presented to the House—the slipshod way in which it is done. We need not be surprised at that; it is what we expect from a Socialist majority or a Socialist administration; but to come here and ask bit by bit, half-year by half-year, £140,000 for each of two half-years, is slipshod. If we had had—and this is what I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mr., Selley) must have had in mind when he said that things might be different next year—if we had had a properly set out plan for the demolition and reconstruction of the bridge," stating how long it was to take, how much it was to cost, how much would be paid off each year, and ho w much would be levied on the rates each year, different consideration would perhaps have been given to the proposal; but now they come asking for a little. bit on account of pulling the bridge down, and we do not know how much will he wanted next year, or how much is going to be borrowed in the following year.
Altogether we know very little except that Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Socialist Leader, decided that come what may he would pull down Waterloo Bridge, whatever Parliament might say.
I should like to say to my timid hon. Friends, members of the same party as myself, who may be afraid of what the Socialists in London will say at the next London County Council or General Election, that I do not know why they should be afraid of what the Socialists will say, because, so long as we do not give in to the Socialists on the London County Council, we have nothing to be afraid of I suggest to my hon. Friends that what will tell will be the size of the rates under the existing regime and party in the London County Council, and nothing else. If the rates have gone up—and I understand that they have gone up by something like is. already under the present administration of the London County Council—the ratepayers of London will rightly say, "we are incompetent, and should go out.", I gather that it is agreed that under this proposal, if the Instruction is not passed, the rates will go up a little more, and a very good thing too, because it will at least have the effect of waking up those somewhat lazy electors—and that is the only way in which the Socialists will ever get into power in London—who have not taken the trouble to vote I hope that the increase in the rates occasioned by this proposal will bring those electors to their sense It is rather interesting to observe the London County Council coming to Parliament and glibly talking about a loan. I seem to recall that not very long ago the London County Council went to the City to try to get another loan, and, if my memory serves me, some 54 per cent. of that loan, so shaken is the confidence of the country in the Socialist administration of the London County Council, was left on the hands of the underwriters. [HON. MEMBERS: "No ! "] If that be not so, I shall be glad to be corrected. At any rate, it will generally be agreed that a considerable amount of that loan was not taken up by the investing public. I do not know really whether, even if this Instruction were defeated, we should get our Waterloo Bridge after all without recourse to the rates, because probably people would not be any the more inclined to loan them money again.
A point was made by one of my hon. Friends supporting the Socialists in this matter that if it goes on to the rates it will be a penny on the rates for five years, whereas if the money is borrowed it will mean something like one-seventh of a penny on the rates for 60 years. The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey) put that forward, and I have no reason to doubt it. If my arithmetic is correct, I make a total of 5d. on the rates if it is done under the scheme which we suggest, that is to say, by putting it all on the rates, whereas if it is spread over 60 years it will total 84-rd. which the London ratepayers will have to find. So that surely the advantage, even on that purely financial ground, is in paying it all off in five years, which would cost 5d. on the rates. On the major point Mr. Morrison has said that he will build his bridge out of the rates, and for him to come here and try to shuffle out of putting another penny on the rates by trying to borrow the money in order to put on one-seventh, is hardly worthy of the London County Council and the high standards of that great body of which hon. Members on those benches speak. We should be very foolish this evening if we were to allow not Parliament to interfere with the London County Council, but the London County Council to interfere with Parliament.

9.57 p.m.

Sir ISIDORE4 SALMON: It is a little unfortunate that some of my hon. Friends who have made speeches this evening should have approached this matter from a political point of view. It is no novelty even for a municipal council to come to Parliament on three occasions, which they did before trams were permitted to go over the bridges of London. Therefore we are not to-night reviewing anything that is novel on the part of the London County Council. It is as well, when we consider a business proposition, to try to review it from a business aspect. The position, as it strikes me, is that many of my hon. Friends this evening have spoken against the right of the London County Council to get a loan. They object on the ground that it will cost a large sum of money. On the other hand, if it had been a question of merely reconditioning the bridge, they would have approved of it. Let us look at it
from the point of view of the difference in cost. The building of a bridge is estimated at the most to cost £1,200,000, and the Council have said that they think it will be done for £100,000 less. It was estimated that the cost of renovating and putting the bridge into a safe condition, in round figures, was £900,000, so that the whole argument of those who are speaking against the Money Bill of the County Council is based on the sum of £200,000. Those are facts which cannot be contradicted, and they are asking for a lean for the purpose of doing a piece of work which it is their duty to do.
It is essential that the old bridge, now that it has been pulled down, should be replaced. I should have thought that a big authority like the London County Council, who, after all, are the responsible authority for the bridges of London, would be permitted to borrow the necessary money so essential for replacing the bridge. It would be a great mistake to have behind one's mind any political bias. No one is more anti-Socialist than I am, but this is not a political proposition; it is a business proposition, and as a realist and as a business man, I think that it is the right thing to do. It is proper to ask the permission of Parliament to get the money so essential for this particular peice of work, and to refuse an authority like the London County Council is scarcely worthy of the dignity f Parliament. I hope that we shall pause before we refuse such an important body the right to ask the public to subscribe money for an object which is so necessary for the benefit of London.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STR A U SS: Several points have been raised this evening in regard to the attitude of the London County Council on the question of Waterloo Bridge and questions have been asked as to their attitude in certain respects. As chairman of the Highways Committee, which is charged with the responsibilities of keeping up the London bridges, and seeing that they are efficient and functioning according to their purposes, and which came to the decision with regard to the rebuilding of the bridge, I may be able to help the House in one or two matters. We have been told that we are flouting Parliament and acting somehow in a most unconstitutional way in coming to Parliament for the fourth time and
asking permission to borrow money. I really cannot follow that argument at all. I am sure that the hon. Member who raised that point cannot remember that before trams were able to cross the London bridges, the authorities had to come to Parliament 10 times, I believe, in order to obtain permission. Surely, everybody—certainly a. big local authority like the London County Council—is entitled to come to Parliament and say, "Here is a, case which we consider absolutely reasonable, and we ask you to consider it on its merits and come to a new conclusion, even if when you considered it last year you had a different opinion."
Further, I would remind the House that this question has been before the House on three previous occasions. The first time in 1926 the House agreed with the view of the London County Council that a new bridge should be built and that the cost should be defrayed by borrowing. On the second occasion, in 1932, on the grounds of economy—certainly anyone who reads the Debate would say that that was the major ground—this House did not approve of the County Council carrying on with this big project. Every hon. Member who spoke against the County Council on that occasion said, "Here is an opportunity to economise, and on this ground we should not approve of a big projection which was to cost a great deal of money." It was turned down on those lines. On the last occasion it was turned down, it is true, by 35 votes, after the matter had been very considerably discussed. Hon. Members, if they are frank with themselves, must admit that to some considerable extent on that occasion there was a big element of political bias which entered into the consideration of the matter. Everyone will agree with that.
We have always tried to avoid making this question a political one, and it has not been difficult for us, because we have been almost unanimous; certainly both parties have agreed right from the time of this controversy in 1924. Right from then till now there has been no division of opinion that the proper solution of this problem was to build a new bridge. Therefore, politics simply have not arisen. It arose on the last occasion when the matter came to the House. I do beg the House on this occasion not to allow political prejudice to bias them in the way in which they are going to vote.
We have had speeches, most unfortunately, by Members saying, "If you want to down the Socialists, vote for the Instruction." In a speech made by the hon. Member below the Gangway he quite frankly said, "Let us punish the Londoners for having elected a Labour County Council. It will be a good thing if the rates go up as a result of the London County Council action. We should like to see the rates go up. Punish the ratepayers and they will not want to elect a Labour council again." That has been put forward by other Members as well. In considering this most important matter that attitude is quite unworthy. There is a very strong feeling in London about this matter, and it is not confined to one party. It pervades people who are non-political. In every constituency throughout London, about 95 per cent, of the people who take any interest in public affairs feel very keenly the position with regard to Waterloo Bridge. They know that the action taken by the County Council was the right action and they feel hurt at the attitude of Parliament in flouting the views of London.
When the question is asked, as it was. asked, "Why, after Parliament came to this decision last year, did the County Council carry on building a new bridge? Surely it was for political reasons"? I would answer quite definitely that my Committee has the responsibility of seeing that the bridges of London carry as much traffic as wants to go over them and, particularly, has the responsibility of seeing that bridges are safe and will not be a risk to life and limb to those that have to go under them. Every Londoner realises that the river traffic has grown immensely during the last few years, particularly big steamers. As it was our responsibility, we had to see that the work entrusted to us was properly carried out. If there was a tragedy, it would not be Parliament's responsibility but that of the London County Council. After careful consideration, we came to. the conclusion that even if we had to pay for it out of the rates, even if Parliament would not alter its decision on a future occasion, which we hoped might happen—even if London was to be burdened and penalised by having to pay for it out of the rates we could not help ourselves if we were going to carry out our duty properly, we had to go on building a new bridge. That is the sole
reason, and surely it is an adequate reason, for our action at that time. I do hope that the relationship between this House and the big authority for whom I am speaking this evening will not be strained by irrelevant and purely political matters on an issue which is not political at all. I think the resentment which exists against this House is most unfortunate, and I do not desire to see it. I would like this House looked upon as a body which invariably considers matters which are not political from a non-political point of view in a cool, detached, judicial manner, absolutely fairly. Unfortunately that is not the feeling that many people have in London as a result of last year's decision. I think it is a great pity. I hope we are not going to repeat that mistake this evening. The House is entitled to treat with respect the expressed view of all London. The question of a grant does not arise at all this evening. Personally, I am very sorry inded that the Minister should have made any announcement whatsoever about that. I think that is a matter which should have been treated on its traffic merits pure and simple, and he should not have made any announcement about it. Nevertheless, he has, so that the question of a grant from the Road Fund does not arise at, all. I am certain that every hon. Member—with the exception, perhaps, of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who has particularly strong feelings with regard to the old bridge—to whatever party he belongs, in the situation with which the London County Council were faced after the decision of Parliament last year would have come to the same decision, and would have had to do as we did, and build a new bridge. I hope the House will not vote for the Instruction, but will respect the opinion of London as expressed unanimously by its elected representatives, an opinion strongly felt by the people throughout the area, and will not deny London what is just—will not deny London their right. I, therefore, hope that for the sake of good government this Instruction will not be accepted by the House.

10.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I am one who, on the first two occasions when the London County Council came forward with this request with regard to Waterloo
Bridge, voted against it and for the retention of the old bridge. On the first occasion the state of the national finances dictated the policy, but on the second occasion last year I voted against the pulling down of Waterloo Bridge because I believed then, and I believe now, that the right solution of the whole bridges problem was to have repaired Waterloo Bridge and, when time and money permitted, to have built a new bridge at Charing Cross. That issue has been avoided and neglected, and, instead, the whole situation has been focussed on Waterloo Bridge alone. There are two considerations when dealing with this problem. You have the ethical, or moral, aspect and the purely practical. I do not want to say a great deal about the ethical and moral aspect, because I believe that the purely practical one far outweighs it in importance, and it is the only one by which this House ought to be governed when deciding how votes should be recorded in the Division Lobby.
I cannot, however, refrain from making a few remarks on the ethical side. I think that the present leader of the London County Council is deserving of some censure for having introduced a political element into this controversy in his ill-timed and immoderate Cardiff speech. In that speech he made a statement to the effect that the London Tory Members had decided on a certain course of action, but it must be placed on record that he was misinformed, for the London Tory Members of Parliament are not at one on this issue at all. But that indiscretion was a minor one compared with what Mr. Morrison did when this House had rejected his Bill last year. He decided to build the bridge out of the rates. So far so good, but now that he is unable to carry out his boast—he made his decision in somewhat of a boasting spirit—he has had to come to the House of Commons, through his representatives this evening, and walk back on his policy, virtually, because he realises that the burden of the building of the bridge, a great capital work, is too great to be placed purely on the rates, and that it ought to be provided for in some other way.
The right course for this House to consider is whether the expenditure should be provided out of the rates, or whether it should be provided by some means
more favourable and more in accordance with modern practice, and for the greater benefit of the community as a whole. But the position that a great public body, having twice in three years been refused by this House a particular request, has come down to the House oi Commons and once again asked for it, is a wrong one. The position ought not to remain, and I suggest that our Parliamentary procedure should be changed in same way so that when a request of this kind is refused the same request cannot be brought forward again within the lifetime of that particular Parliament. Here I part company with those who are going to vote for the Instruction, because the circumstances since last year have entirely changed. We Cannot fight the fight for the retention of Waterloo Bridge, even if we wished to do so, because the bridge has gone and the Debate this evening in so far as it discusses that question can be nothing more than an inquest.
We have to decide how the new bridge which is to be built is to be paid for, and it is right for the House to take a broad view and to rule out of consideration altogether any derelictions of official con- duct that the promoters of the Bill may have made, and to weigh the question of the payment for the new bridge absolutely on its merits alone. Nearly two years ago in a Mediterranean country a revolt was organised on a large scale, with a large force, by a certain group, and in the course of that revolt a great deal of damage was done and many beautiful and. usefuI buildings were either destroyed or greatly damaged. I think there is no one in this House who would deny that it is absolutely right for the present Government of Spain—for that is the country to which I refer—and the whole country to co-operate in rebuilding anew the buildings which one particular group in their wild excess had damaged and pulled to pieces. So this evening, this House ought to take a broad view, and ought to co-operate with the whole country in granting the most fav- ourable terms possible for the rebuilding of a new and worthy bridge. I have a feeling of contempt for the way in which this matter has been handled by the par- ties responsible—I do not mean political parties—and, although their request is somewhat contemptible, I think it would be a great injustice to deny it.

10.21 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I am very glad that the Debate has now got on to the basis of considering what really are the proposals before the House. Its initiation may be described as the last attempt of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) to stir up the flickers of an old controversy. Throughout the Debate it has struck me that there has been an under-current of trying again to revert to the old question of the merits of Waterloo Bridge, and, in order to reinforce the arguments for the Instruction it has been said that the London County Council, by bringing forward this proposal, are attempting to challenge the decision of the House of Commons. I ask hon. Members really to look at what has happened in this matter. Hon. Members who were present on the last occasion know perfectly well that the discussion then had no reference whatever to the question of whether the money should be raised by one means or another. The sole question of the Debate was whether Waterloo Bridge should be pulled down or not, and that was the question upon which Parliament indicated its opinion. It was not competent to decide the issue; it was not within the purview of Parliament otherwise than by promoting a Bill to preserve Waterloo Bridge. It had delegated its powers long ago, as regards the construction and maintenance of bridges, to the London County Council. One of the most remarkable things has been the practically unanimous opinion expressed by hon. Members representing London constituencies in this House—I except the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) and the hon. Member for South Kensington. They are the only dissenting voices in the whole of London Members in the House to-night; and, in addition, you have both parties on the London County Council desiring this and the almost unanimous' opinion of London.
There has been no expression of regret at the disappearance of Waterloo Bridge since its demolition was started. Therefore, the decision which Parliament indicated—it could not give a direct vote on the matter on the last occasion—was a decision as to the desirability or not of pulling down Waterloo Bridge. It must be remembered by hon. Members who talk about the undesirability of Parliament changing its views, that in
1926 Parliament decided that it was desirable to pull down Waterloo Bridge. There was a vote in the Money Bill which gave permission to borrow money for the pulling down and rebuilding of the bridge. On that occasion the London County Council did not proceed with what Parliament had acknowledged not only that they were right in doing but had encouraged them to do, because the Government themselves set up a Royal Commission, and the County Council waited for the decision of that Royal Commission. When the decision came out the London County Council immediately tried to implement it by producing a Bill which incorporated its provisions, and they laid it before this House, again asking for the assistance of this House in the solution of the problem. A Committee of this House turned it down.
Never throughout this controversy has this House itself been prepared to do anything constructive as regards Waterloo Bridge. It has criticised and it has commented, and of course the reason why it has not done anything constructive is that it had delegated its powers to the London County Council. Then, after waiting this period of 12 to 13 years, during which the bridge had been in a dangerous condition and there was a temporary structure carrying some of the traffic, surely the time arrived when the authorities that had been charged with this particular job had to decide what they were going to do about it. The Council, taking into account their heavy responsibility in this matter, resolved that if Parliament could not help any further than by merely indicating its opinion—Parliament did not seek to take over the responsibility, financial or otherwise—they must decide, and they so decided, apparently to the unanimous pleasure of the constituents to whom they are responsible.
Now arises a wholly different question, and it arises for the first time in this House in this Debate That is that the responsible authority having decided that it is necessary to build a bridge, having decided that it is to be done by pulling down Waterloo Bridge and erecting another bridge in its place, how is it to finance the undertaking? Under the machinery that was laid down many years ago it is necessary for the County Council, or one might say it
is the privilege of the County Council, to submit an annual money Bill to this House. The object of that is that the County Council may have a better facility for borrowing. The only question that this House considers is whether the capital expenditure which is shown as being requisite by the County Council in the Bill is properly capital expenditure, whether it is a proper thing upon which capital should be expended rather than revenue. I do not think there has been a single argument to-night on that issue, which is the issue before the House, even attempting to show that in this case the expenditure on this bridge ought not to be on capital account. Indeed, there is not a Member of the House who could conceivably get up and say that under the ordinary methods of finance which are adopted by the central Government, by municipal governments or corporations, this type of expenditure is not one which ought properly to fall upon the capital account of this large municipal body rather than upon the rates.
There can be no argument upon the actual merits of the case before the House. If that be so, then apart from the picturesque and somewhat antediluvian notions of the hon. Baronet who moved the Motion as regards aesthetic preference for Waterloo Bridge, what else is there that can conceivably induce anyone to vote for the Instruction? I regret to say that it is clear from some of the speeches, that.the only other thing that could conceivably induce anybody to vote in favour of it is the consideration that they would thereby embarrass the political party which is in the ascendancy in the London County Council at present. I am sure that the House, if it takes its duty and its obligation seriously, is not going to allow that consideration to weigh with it. It, would be most unfortunate if, as a result of this debate, it could be said outside "Look at these speeches urging people to have a smack at the Socialist party in the London County Council"—I think someone picturesquely put it in that way—and if it could be said that those speeches had apparently succeeded in swaying a majority in the House of Commons. I am sure that nobody here would wish that that reading should be given to this Debate.
I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, therefore, to realise that this is the
first time the House has ever been asked to decide the question which is now before us. We all know quite well that the problem which was discussed in previous debates was completely different. The House of Commons then took a different view from the London County Council as to the desirability of doing something which was the function of the County Council and not of the House. That question now being out of the way and the London County Council having decided, as it has the right and indeed the duty to decide, that this operation is to be undertaken, it now asks the House to consider one single point: Is this to be done by capital expenditure and not out of revenue? No argument has been put forward on the merits to show that it should not be done by capital expenditure. Therefore if we are to proceed in this matter by reason and not by prejudice, as I hope we are, there can be, in my submission no doubt in anyone's mind that support must be given to the County Council and that this Instruction ought to be defeated.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Like the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just delighted the House with his speech, I am not a Member for a London constituency though, like him, I am a London ratepayer. My excuse for intervening in this discussion is that it seems to involve a constitutional point of great interest. I hope I shall follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in the moderation of his speech and I join with him in deploring that on an issue of this character party political considerations should be suffered to intrude. I would only say in defence of my own side that Members of ail parties have occasionally allowed such considerations to appear in their speeches. It has not been confined to one set of politicians alone. Perhaps it is a natural vice of our system that we cannot speak on any subject without words of a party political character flying to the tips of our tongues. But the real point in this matter seems to be of more practical interest.
Let me first ask the House to consider what we are called upon to decide. We are asked to decide whether or not we shall give an Instruction to the Committee which is to consider the Bill to excise that portion of it which enables
the County Council to borrow money for certain purposes. It seems to have been assumed that what the County Council are asking is some great financial boon which will redound considerably to the profit of the citizens of London. I am willing to accept the calculations submitted by the hon. Member for Kenning. ton (Mr. G. Harvey) and it appears to be, financially, a very trifling matter. You have to choose whether the ratepayers of London are to pay a penny rate for five years or a rate which he says amounts to a seventh of a penny for 60 years; in other words, you have to decide whether you are going to pay for your new bridge outright or whether you are going to buy it on the hire-purchase system. As a matter of domestic economy, I have always tried to make it a rule never to purchase anything on the hire-purchase system if I could afford to pay for it out of income, because, added to the total cost with which you saddle yourself, you have to pay the interest charges involved. It seems to me, if the calculations of the hon. Member are correct--and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy—that it is an extremely bad bargain from the point of view of the London County Council to ask its ratepayers to spend 81d. spread over a period of 60 years when they might settle the bill once and for all by paying a fivepenny rate.

Mr. RADFORD: Does the hon. and learned Member take into account that if the ratepayers of London have to find 'a penny in the £ during the five years, there will be interest running on those pennies for the 60 years, and that accounts for the whole difference?

Mr. MORRISON: That means that the hon. Member is to credit himself with interest on sums of money which he never possesses and is never likely to receive in the course of his life. It is no gain to me to say that because I choose to buy a thing outright because I can pay for it, I am thus debiting myself with the interest on an unascertained sum of money running, it may be, into 60 years. No; it is plain common sense that if 'a man can pay out of income for what he is purchasing, he is saving himself the additional burden of interest charges which he pays for accommodation for a period of years. If you need the 'accommodation, the interest charge is worth paying, but van anyone say that a penny rate for five
years is a burden on the ratepayers of London which they cannot tolerate Can anyone say it is a, burden of sufficient magnitude to entitle them to pay money for interest over a long period of years? It appears to me that even on the financial side we should be doing a wise thing in asking the London County Council to shoulder this burden of a penny rate for five years, rather than asking them to pay interest charges for accommodation over a period of years, an accommodation which they do not require, which is a mere luxury to them, and which will cost them money which should not be expended.
I am very surprised to hear Members of the party opposite supporting this proposition, because I had the pleasure recently of reading a very eloquent declamation by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition against all interest charges, and I have some sympathy with his view, because I realise that in all matters of national economy this insidious piling up of debt—a seventh of a penny here, going on for years and years, and so on—is a process that should be watched with the utmost vigilance if it is not to result in an intolerable burden. But if all interest is usury, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition should tell the London County Council to avoid this evil thing and keep their money in their own pocket instead of spending it on interest charges.
Apart from that, it seems to me that the main question which we are discussing to-night was proposed but not answered by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), when he said he was concerned that Parliament should not interfere with the proper functions of the London County Council. I would agree with that. I am not a member of the London County Council, but I am a Member of Parliament, and I am concerned with the functions of Parliament and with how far Parliament's voice is to be honoured and obeyed when it expresses its opinion, right or wrong, on any subject. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) followed his hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham in attempting to consider this matter as if it were a financial matter only, and as if all Parliament had to do in passing these annual London County Council Bills was to consider
whether the expenditure could be properly put to capital account or met out of rates. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that no other local authority, if it asked the Minister to borrow money for such a purpose, would be refused, and he made a strong point that the London County Council was in an invidious position in regard to that. I would ask him whether, if a local authority like Birmingham or Manchester asked the appropriate Minister for sanction for a loan for a purpose which Parliament had condemned, would it get the loan? The answer is obviously that it would not. This matter comes before the House of Commons at this moment because of the peculiar relations that exist between us and the great London County Council.
It might be worth while if I stated the point I am trying to establish, namely, that in considering the money Bills of the London County Council Parliament is not only concerned with the mere accounting of the money and its allocation to the appropriate account, whether capital or revenue, but is concerned with and is responsible for the purposes for which the money when borrowed is to be used. If that be true, it puts an entirely different complexion upon the matter from the merely financial and accounting aspect on which hon. Members opposite instructed us. The position arises in this way. Hon. Members will find a most succinct account of it admirably expressed in a book by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green, which he has been kind enough to place in the Library for the convenience of Members. I refer to "London and its government." The predecessor for this purpose of the London County Council was the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was in the habit of raising money in its own way. Sometimes it raised money very badly and paid too much for it. Parliament, desiring to give it a better opportunity for borrowing purposes, laid down a limit in 1869 beyond which it could not borrow, and then said that if the Board wanted to borrow more it had to get Treasury sanction. The Board soon exhausted the limit, and there were frequent appeals to the Treasury for power to borrow more money. The Treasury, in a correspondence with the Metropolitan Board of
Works, took up the attitude of saying that they would prefer an annual Act fixing the amount which might be raised within the year, inasmuch as they would reserve to Parliament the complete control which was desirable when extensive loan operations were in progress.
That is bow this arrangement came into being, and the matter received further consideration and statutory confirmation in the Consolidation Act of 1912. Therefore, we are concerned, every time the London County Council wishes to raise money, with an examination, not only of the accounting, but of the purpose for which the money is desired to be raised. Had it been otherwise, had it been the mere accounting matter that we are told it is, it would not have been necessary for the London County Council to say what they wanted to do with the money. The fact that the Bill is in this form, with all the details of the purposes for which the money is wanted, shows that Parliamentary approval, not only for the loan itself, but for the purpose for which it is to be used, is necessary. It is easy to see why that is so. Not only are there the questions of the magnitude of London's security and its wealth and the huge size of its possible financial operations—those are not the only considerations. London is the capital of a great Empire and contains monuments of triumphs to which not only London but the might of the whole Empire has contributed. It commemorates, it may be, disasters in which the whole nation has suffered, and not London alone. It is that aspect of London, as the capital of the Empire, which makes it necessary that changes which involve capital expenditure in particular and may involve the destruction of national monuments should be subjected to Parliamentary control.
We are asked to say whether we approve of this expenditure being charged to a revenue account. I have offered to the House considerations which lead me to suppose that the London County Council would be acting more frugally in the interests of its ratepayers if it paid the money, as it could well do, in five years. But we are also concerned with the purpose for which the money is being spent. That purpose is no stranger to this House. It has been discussed fully in the past, twice within the lifetime of this Parliament. Not only has it
been debated on the Floor of the House, but those debates have been heralded by the usual barrage of documentary persuasion from both parties. Who can say, in these circumstances, that Parliament's decision, which may be right or wrong—and I think it is right—is not the voice of Parliament and, as such, entitled to respect?
It is idle to suppose that, in those discussions there was any powerful party bias on the one side or the other. Parliament answered with the same voice a Council composed of the supporters of the present administration and of their declared political foes. Hon. Members saw on the first occasion the unusual spectacle of two Members on the Treasury Bench speaking on different sides of the question. It is a matter on which we are all entitled to our opinions and may be pardoned if we differ from one another. I submit thta the matter has been considered by Parliament in that light.
If that be so, how do we stand? Are we to be told that the London County Council should be allowed to borrow money for a purpose which Parliament has declared to be a bad one? If that were to be the case the voice of Parliament would suffer sonic diminution of authority. It is regrettable, to some extent, that there has been what, for want of a better term, has been called a flouting of Parliamentary authority in the language used and in the tone and temper in which it was expressed. Had it been a mere matter of disagreement with Parliament and a regretful determination to procede with what was considered to be the best scheme, the matter would not be so serious; but it is common knowledge that after the recent change of administration there was a good deal Of horn blowing, a good deal of ostentatious contempt of the decision of Parliament, a good deal of what I may be permitted to call injudicious contrast of Parliament's voice with that of the rival body. They should never be rival bodies, but co-partners in this matter.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. and learned Member tell us whom he considers responsible for the safety of and for the traffic over Waterloo Bridge, the County Council or Parliament?

Mr. MORRISON: I consider, undonbtedly, the highway authority the bridge authority, to be the London County Council; but my argument is that the growth of the relations between Parliament and the London County Council places the bridge authority here in a different relation to Parliament than in the case of any other bridge authority, because the necessary borrowing power of the London County Council requires scrutiny by Parilament as to its purpose as well as to its accounting.

Mr. LANSBURY: If during these discussions a central arch of the bridge had fallen in who would have been responsible to the people of London 1 The argument that has been put to-night—and not met —is that action had to be taken.

Mr. MORRISON: That is a question where perhaps I ought to follow the advice that it is unwise to answer hypothetical questions. If in fact that situation had arisen the London County Council would have been blamed and properly blamed, because they had not told the people of London that the situation was as serious as that. It was not that situation. The situation was that Waterloo Bridge was in danger, and that there were two views of what ought to be done for the safety of the people of London. There was the view that there ought to be a destruction of the old bridge and a completely new erection. There was the equally good scheme from the point of view of the safety of the people of London, which was put forward by myself and my hon. Friends on the last occasion, that you could reconstruct a narrow bridge and have your Charing Cross bridge at some later period. This has never been a question between, on the one hand, accepting the London County Council's scheme and, on the other hand, of doing nothing and letting the bridge fall into the river, and it does not help

the argument to suggest that it ever was so. Unfortunately, the position comes before us in this way. After one makes allowances for words spoken in the full flush of a newly acquired and hardly expected victory there has been created a spirit of opposition, a suggestion that Parliament's views on this matter are of no account, that the London County Council's point of view is the only one that matters, and that we are concerned with the mere accounting matters which have been harped on by the hon. Member for East Fulham and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. It is not so. We are entitled to express our opinion, and no money should be borrowed for a scheme which this House has, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion is a bad scheme.

I view this as a constitutional matter of some importance. It is true that relations between Parliament and the London County Council are bound to be difficult because they are anomalous. Their working out will require a good deal of patient exploration, of good temper, of self respect and mutual respect. We do not help to a proper solution of that difficult problem by disclaiming the powers which we undoubtedly have by shirking the responsibility which is undoubtedly east on us of approving the purposes for which London is borrowing money and, while this regrettable opposition has arisen, in my judgment—and I say it with great respect—the only way in which we can express as Parliament our view that this matter has been injudiciously dealt with by the other body is by voting for the Instruction which was moved in a speech of such admirable temper by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 96.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Craven-Ellis, William


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Braithiwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brass, Captain Sir William
Davies, Maj. Gec. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Dickie, John P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Balniel, Lord
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burnett. John George
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Campbell-Johnston, Maicolm
Glossop, C. W. H.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Goff, Sir Park


Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gower, Sir Robert


Blindelt, James
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Boulton, W. W.
Cook, Thomas A.
Grimston, R. V.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morgan, Robert H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Mom, Captain H. J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Horobin, Ian M.
Munro, Patrick
Spencer, Captain Richard A


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Stones, James


Hunter, Capt, M. J. (Brigg)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Storey, Samuel


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Peat, Charles U.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Petherick, M
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pike, Cecil F.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wlck-on-T.)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pybus, Sir John
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Leas-Jones, John
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Levy, Thomas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Liddall, Walter S.
Remer, John R.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Rickards, George William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wise, Alfred R.


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Magnay, Thomas
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)



Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandys, Duncan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sir William Davison and Commander Marsden.


Mitchell, Harold 'P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forlar)



Moreing, Adrian C.
Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Graves, Marjorle
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Agnew. Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Owen, Major Goronwy


Aske. Sir Robert William
Grenfell, David Ree (Glamorgan)
Paling, Wilfred


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Griffith, George A. (Yorks.W.Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Penny, Sir George


Batey, Joseph
Hairs, Sir Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pfn,Bllston)


Bossom, A. C.
Hicks, Ernest George
Radford, E. A.


Buchanan, George
Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. Leslie
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Carver, Major William H.
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Castlereagh, viscount
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Selley, Harry R.


Clarke, Frank
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cleary, J. J.
Law, Sir Alfred
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Colman, N. C. D.
Leckle,. J. A.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Leonard, William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crossley, A. C.
Logan, David Gilbert
Strauss, Edward A.


Dallgar, George
Lunn. William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Thorne, William James


Denman. Hon. R. D. '
Macdonald, sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobble, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
West, F. R.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
William, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Sir Charles
Mainwarlng, William Henry
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evens, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot



Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sir W. Lane-Mitchell and Mr.Wilmot.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out paragraph (c) of item 9 of Part I of the Schedule:

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.